2460260

Permission for the (a) changes to layout and house types on site numbers 20 & 21 and 30 to 37 inclusive (10 No. houses) approved under Planning Permission Reg. Ref.: 22 / 688 to 14 No. houses comprising the following: 5 No. 3 bedroom 2 storey end of terrace and semi-detached Type C2 , 5 No. 3 bedroom 2 storey end of terrace and semi-detached Type C3 , 3 No. 2 bedroom 2 storey mid-terrace Type H and 1 No. 4 bedroom 2 storey detached Type M , and (b) changes to elevational treatment and roof profile of house No’s 1 & 2 and 24-29 inclusive , approved under Planning Permission Reg. Ref.: 22/583 to match the materials and finishes approved under Reg. Ref.: 22 /688 compliance condition 9 ( a ) and ( b) , all on approved sites 1 & 2, 20 & 21 and 24-37 inclusive, “Norhalton” Raynoldstown Village

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed modifications to the layout and house types would negatively impact residential and visual amenities, specifically degrading the public open space and pedestrian/cycle route along the Mulharlin Stream due to reduced width and loss of passive surveillance.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The proposed changes to the layout and house types would be injurious to the residential and visual amenities of the future occupants and the surrounding public realm.
  • The development would lead to the degradation of the public open space and the pedestrian/cycle route along the Mulharlin Stream by reducing its width and diminishing passive surveillance.
  • The proposal is contrary to the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027, which aims to provide quality living environments and ensure sustainable development of the area.

Cited Policies (CDP)

HOU 10HOU 17HOU 23HOU 25NBG 3NBG 4IU 19

Decision Document Summary

The applicant, Groveview Builders Limited, proposed changes to the layout and house types of a previously approved residential development at Norhalton Raynoldstown Village, Dundalk, Co. Louth. Although the initial executive planner recommended approval, the application was ultimately refused following an addendum report from the Senior Executive Planner. The refusal was based on the determination that the proposed modifications would degrade the quality of the public realm and residential ameni...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.