4116/23

PERMISSION: For construction of 2 No. semi-detached, two storey, part single storey , three bedroom dwellings with green flat roofs and roof lights , solar panels, rear gardens, pedestrian/vehicular entrances with off-street parking from the adjacent access laneway and all associated site works-all at to the rear of Nos. 22,24,26 Seapark Road, Clontarf, Dublin 3.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The Inspector recommended granting permission, reversing the Planning Authority's initial refusal. The core reasoning is that the proposed two-dwelling infill development on Z1-zoned land is of a limited scale that utilizes an established access arrangement, and any potential traffic safety or pedestrian conflicts can be managed through specific enhancement measures and conditions.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The existing laneway access, while narrow, is a long-standing arrangement and the proposed safety enhancements (signage, lighting, and delineated markings) are sufficient to manage increased traffic to an acceptable level.
  • The height and scale of the proposed dwellings are appropriate for the site context and comply with BRE Guidelines regarding overshadowing and daylight, ensuring no significant impact on adjacent residential amenities.
  • The development represents a significant planning gain by utilizing a large undeveloped backland site in a manner consistent with compact growth and the Z1 zoning objective of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Z1 Sustainable Residential NeighbourhoodsSection 15.13.5.4 (Mews Access)Policy SC8 (Inner Suburbs)Policy SC10 (Urban Density)Policy QHSN2 (National Guidelines)Section 15.11 (House Developments)Section 15.13.4 (Backland Housing)Section 15.5.5 (Density)Appendix 5 (Transport and Mobility)Appendix 16 (Sunlight and Daylight)

Decision Document Summary

The proposal involves the construction of two semi-detached, part two-storey dwellings on a 0.0356-hectare backland site at the rear of Seapark Road, Clontarf. Dublin City Council originally refused the application, citing a substandard access laneway and potential traffic hazards. However, the Inspector found that the laneway is currently shared and frequently used, and the additional traffic from two units would be limited. The Inspector's arguments focused on the unique nature of this site as...
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