23914

the construction of 56 no. residential units, the provision of 110 no. car parking spaces, all pedestrian and vehicular access roads and footpaths will link to the northern Phase 1 of the overall development, all associated site and infrastructural works. A Natura Impact Statement (NIS) has been prepared in respect of the proposed development and will be submitted to the Planning Authority with this planning application

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed development significantly exceeds the maximum density permitted under the R4 zoning objective and fails to provide an appropriate visual transition to the rural fringe due to excessive site level alterations and intrusive retaining structures.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The proposed density of 22.4 units per hectare materially contravenes the R4 zoning objective of the Wicklow Rathnew Development Plan 2013, which specifies a maximum density of 10 units per hectare for this peripheral, poorly serviced location.
  • The significant alteration of natural site levels and the inclusion of extensive, visually intrusive retaining structures would result in an abrupt and inappropriate transition between the urban grain and the adjacent unzoned agricultural lands.
  • The applicant failed to demonstrate that the additional traffic volume could be safely accommodated at the Greenhills Road junction or that adequate pedestrian connectivity to the town centre could be provided to ensure sustainable transport movements.

Cited Policies (CDP)

CPO 6.3CPO 6.4CPO 6.5CPO 12.56CPO 12.57CPO 12.8CPO 17.18CPO 17.20CPO 17.21CPO 17.22CPO 17.23CPO 17.25CPO 17.26R4 Zoning (Wicklow Rathnew Development Plan 2013)Section 6.3.5

Decision Document Summary

Cedarbrick Retail Developments Ltd proposed the construction of 56 residential units and associated infrastructure at Mariner's Point, Wicklow Town, on a site zoned R4 New Residential. The development was refused primarily because the proposed density of 22.4 units per hectare more than doubled the 10 units per hectare limit set for this peripheral location. Furthermore, the Planning Authority raised serious concerns regarding the visual impact of extensive retaining walls required by the site's...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.