D24A/0014

Modification to an existing 19th century building which is in a derelict

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The applicant failed to demonstrate a genuine economic or social need to reside in this rural area, specifically failing to prove that their principal employment is in agriculture, which is a requirement for housing on lands zoned Objective 'G' (High Amenity) under the County Development Plan.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The proposal must be assessed as a new rural dwelling because the existing 19th-century structure is in a state of advanced dereliction with no roof, windows, or internal floors.
  • The applicant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence, such as income details, to demonstrate that their 'principal employment' is in agriculture as required by the 'High Amenity' zoning objective.
  • While the restoration of a vernacular building offers a heritage planning gain under Policy HER20, this does not override the fundamental requirement to comply with rural housing need policies and zoning objectives.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Objective GPolicy Objective PHP23Section 4.3.1.6Policy Objective HER20Policy Objective GIB6Section 11.4.3.2Section 12.3.10Section 12.3.9

Decision Document Summary

The application sought to renovate and extend a derelict 19th-century stone building at Taylors Folly, Stepaside, to create a 188 sq.m. two-storey dwelling. The site is located in the Glencullen Valley, an area zoned Objective 'G' to protect high amenity landscapes. The Planning Authority refused permission, a decision upheld by the Inspector. The primary issue was the 'rural housing test'; despite the applicant's involvement in the family farm, their primary employment is off-farm. The Inspecto...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.

PDF Document Missing

The original decision document for this case could not be linked. This often happens for older cases or those with restricted documentation.

Search for case on ABP