4896/23

Permission for the construction of a two storey two bedroom detached dwelling (123 sq.m.) with a first floor rear (south) facing terrace (12 sq.m.) and ancillary site development works (no off street car parking is being provided for the proposed dwelling) on a plot to the rear.

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended granting permission, concluding that the proposal represents an acceptable form of compact infill development on a residentially zoned site that would not be injurious to the visual or residential amenities of the area, nor would it negatively impact the character of the adjoining Conservation Area and Protected Structures.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The development is consistent with national and local policies promoting compact growth and sustainable intensification on infill sites in established urban areas.
  • The revised design, which includes reductions in height and floor area, appropriately mitigates potential impacts on the residential and visual amenities of neighbouring properties and the surrounding Conservation Area.
  • The proposed car-free development is acceptable given the site-specific constraints of the narrow laneway access and the site's convenient proximity to high-quality public transport (Luas and bus routes).

Cited Policies (CDP)

Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028Zoning Objective Z1Zoning Objective Z2Section 2.3 Settlement StrategyPolicy QHSN6 (Urban Consolidation)Policy QHSN10 (Urban Density)Policy BHA2 (Protected Structures)Policy BHA9 (Conservation Areas)Appendix 5 Section 4.3.8 (Mews Parking)Section 15.13.5 (Mews Development)

Decision Document Summary

The application seeks permission for a two-storey, two-bedroom detached dwelling on an infill site (190sqm) at the rear of 32 & 33 Palmerston Road, Dublin 6, accessed via Beechdale Mews. Initially proposed at 123sqm with a terrace, the development was amended through Further Information to 109sqm with a reduced height of 5.775m and a Juliette balcony. Appellants raised significant concerns regarding the narrow width of the laneway (approx. 3.1m), potential traffic hazards, overdevelopment, and i...
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