2560098

alterations to previously approved application Ref: 20153. The proposed alterations consist of: Alterations of house types including position of houses, finished floor levels, ridge heights, revised window/door positions and revised materials/finishes. The proposed 6 no. house types consist of: 2 no. 2 bedroom 2 storey houses and 4 no. 3 bedroom 2 storey houses, landscaping, boundary treatments and all associated site works. Ground works related to previously approved application ref: 20153 will be carried out during this application

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed design is considered injurious to the visual and residential amenities of the area, and the application is intrinsically linked to a parent permission (Ref: 20/153) that expires too soon to allow for the completion of the development.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The design of the proposed dwellings lacks a uniform aesthetic and consistent architectural features, which would result in a negative impact on the streetscape and the visual amenities of Roundwood village.
  • The proposed development is wholly reliant on parent permission Ref: 20/153, which is due to expire on 29/09/2025, leaving the applicant with insufficient time to complete significant works or address the Planning Authority's concerns.
  • Permitting the development would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development as insufficient information was submitted to demonstrate that the project could be delivered within the appropriate period of the linked permission.

Cited Policies (CDP)

RD3SPD 9SPD 10SPD 12CPO 6.1CPO 6.2CPO 6.3CPO 6.4CPO 6.16CPO 6.21CPO 6.22Objective 8.5Objective 13.2Objective 17.4Appendix 1Appendix 7

Decision Document Summary

Ultimate Rise Limited sought permission for alterations to a previously approved 6-unit residential scheme (Ref: 20/153) located on the main street of Roundwood, Co. Wicklow. The proposal included changes to house types, ridge heights, floor levels, and materials. Wicklow County Council refused the application on the grounds that the revised design was architecturally inconsistent and would harm the visual character of the area. Furthermore, the planning authority determined that because the par...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.