231046

the development consist of 4 no. additional dwelling units to previously approved development to rear of site (previous planning ref. no. NA190100), being 2no. ground floor one bedroomed apartments, & 2no. two bedroomed duplex townhouses above, in 1no. three storey building, total 7no. units proposed to entire site. Landscaping & boundary treatment, pathways, car parking, & ancillary site services. The above proposed works will be carried out to and within the curtilage of a protected structure ref. no. NT025-101. Significant further information/revised plans submitted on this application

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The Planning Authority deferred a final decision by issuing a Request for Further Information (RFI) due to concerns regarding residential amenity, sub-optimal architectural design, and insufficient technical detail on site services.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The applicant failed to demonstrate a minimum 22m separation distance between the opposing windows of the proposed building and existing dwellings at Blackcastle Lodge, potentially compromising residential amenity.
  • The proposed external staircase was deemed to detract from the overall design of the building, and the applicant was required to submit a revised design incorporating the staircase internally.
  • The application lacked essential technical specifications and compliance evidence for public lighting, boundary wall construction, and a SuDS-compliant surface water management strategy.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Section 11.14.6Section 11.5.8Section 11.5.7DM OBJ 27Section 3.8.3Section 11.5.3DM POL 5DM OBJ 14

Decision Document Summary

The proposal seeks permission for 4 additional residential units (2 ground-floor apartments and 2 duplexes) to the rear of 66 Flowerhill, Navan, Co. Meath, on a site containing a protected structure. While the development is considered acceptable in principle under the 'A1 Existing Residential' zoning, the Planning Authority issued a Request for Further Information rather than a grant of permission. This decision was driven by concerns over the impact on the privacy of adjacent residents, the ae...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.