Core Refusal Reason
The proposed development, by virtue of its height, density, and roof profile in close proximity to boundaries, would be overly dominant and would negatively impact the setting and architectural integrity of the adjacent Protected Structure, Crinken Cottage.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The scale and 13.08m height of the building result in visual dominance that fails to respect or protect the character and setting of the neighbouring Protected Structure, Crinken Cottage.
- The application lacks a mandatory ecological assessment required by Policy OR12 of the Woodbrook-Shanganagh Local Area Plan, creating uncertainty regarding the impact on protected species such as bats and owls.
- Proposed appeal-stage modifications to the roof profile are considered a material change to the unit mix and design that would be better addressed via a new planning application.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective AZoning Objective A1Policy Objective PHP18 (Residential Density)Section 12.11.2.3 (Development within the Grounds of a Protected Structure)Appendix 5 (Building Height Strategy)Policy Objective PHP35 (Healthy Placemaking)Policy Objective PHP42 (Building Design & Height)Policy Objective CA6 (Retrofit and Reuse of Buildings)Policy Objective HER20 (Buildings of Vernacular and Heritage Interest)Section 12.3.9 (Demolition and Replacement Dwellings)Section 12.3.5.3 (Internal Storage and External Storage)Section 12.3.5.5 (Minimum Apartment Floor Areas)Table 12.5 (Car Parking Zones & Standards)Section 12.8.3.3 (Private Open Space)
Decision Document Summary
The proposal seeks the demolition of 'Shanganagh Cottage' and the construction of 18 residential units (increased from 16 at the further information stage) on a 0.23 ha site in Shankill. The site context is highly sensitive, located in a 'transitional zonal area' directly adjacent to Crinken Cottage, a Protected Structure. While the Inspector acknowledges that the principle of demolition is acceptable to facilitate compact growth and that the proposed density of 78 dph is appropriate for the sub...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