D24A/0009

Demolition of existing storage shed (circa 130sqm gross external area) and the

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The Planning Authority initially refused permission due to inadequate access laneway width and the restricted movement for emergency vehicles at a 90-degree turn, but the Inspector recommended a grant of permission, finding that the laneway provides sufficient access from the north and the development is acceptable infill densification.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The principle of the proposed mews development is acceptable under Zoning Objective A and Policy PHP19, which supports the densification of existing built-up areas through small-scale infill development.
  • Access arrangements are considered adequate for emergency and service vehicles as they can utilize the northern portion of the laneway without negotiating the restrictive 90-degree turn mentioned by the Planning Authority.
  • The contemporary design, height, and orientation of the dwelling will not significantly impact the residential amenities of neighboring properties in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, or being overbearing.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Zoning Objective ASection 12.3.1.1Section 12.3.7.7Section 12.3.7.9Section 12.4.8.1Section 12.4.8.3Section 12.4.11Table 12.5Section 12.4.6Policy Objective PHP19Policy Objective EI4Policy Objective EI6Policy Objective EI9

Decision Document Summary

The proposal involves the demolition of a 130sqm storage shed and the construction of a two-storey, 2-bedroom mews house (178sqm gross) at the rear of 42 Beaumont Avenue, Churchtown. The site is located in a serviced suburban area characterized by a mix of terraced and semi-detached dwellings. While the Planning Authority refused permission citing laneway width non-compliance with Section 12.3.7.9, the Inspector argued that the 3.4m–3.9m width is sufficient and noted that nearby mews (41A) estab...
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