221054

construction of a 49no apartment unit building comprising of four storey with fifth and sixth floors set back and containing 17no one bedroom/ 2 person units and 32no two bedroom/ 4 person units, new vehicular entrance, 25no sub-level vehicular parking spaces (including 2no disabled spaces), 108no secure resident and visitor bicycle parking spaces, plant room, communal storeroom, bin storage area, pedestrian entrances off Castle Street, creation of hard and soft landscaped public areas to front (south) and rear (north) of proposed development, hard and soft landscaped rooftop (fifth floor) communal amenity space, roof mounted photo voltaic solar panel array (57sqm), connections to public infrastructure mains, and all other associated site development works

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposal constitutes overdevelopment of a restricted town centre site, failing to provide the required mixed-use component and active street frontage while delivering substandard residential amenity.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The development materially contravenes the Bray Municipal District LAP by failing to provide a mixed-use scheme and active commercial street frontage at ground floor level.
  • The scale, height, and proximity to boundaries result in an overbearing impact on adjoining properties and represent an overdevelopment of the site with inadequate separation distances.
  • The proposal fails to meet minimum residential standards regarding communal and private open space, internal storage, and daylighting, resulting in a substandard level of amenity for future residents.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Objective OP3Objective BT3CPO 6.2CPO 6.3CPO 6.4CPO 6.5CPO 6.6CPO 6.7CPO 6.8CPO 6.13CPO 7.30SPPR 1SPPR 2SPPR 3SPPR 4SPPR 5SPPR 6

Decision Document Summary

Bray Property Development LTD proposed a 49-unit apartment building of up to six storeys at the former Everest Centre on Castle Street, Bray. The site is designated as Opportunity Site OP3, which mandates mixed-use development with active street frontage. The application was refused primarily because it was 100% residential, failing to meet the zoning objectives. Additionally, the Planning Authority found the proposal to be an overdevelopment that would negatively impact the amenity and developm...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.