22599

the construction of 60 Residential Units as follows; 12 no. Type A (3 bed semi-detached units); 19 no. Type B (2 bed terrace units); 21 no. Type A1 (3 bed end of Terrace units); 2 no. Type C (3 bed semi-detached units); 2 no Type D (1 bed apartment); 2 no Type E (1 bed apartment); 1 no Type F, (2 bed apartment) and 1 no Type G, (2 bed apartment). Provision of public and private open space, carparking, bin storage, public lighting, landscaping, boundary treatments, pedestrian access and site entrance onto Lakeside Park, connections to existing services and all associated development. Revised by Significant Further Information which consists of a revised site layout, reduction of 2 no. units from 60 to 58 and related amendments to design

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed development was deemed unacceptable due to significant deficiencies in layout and design, specifically regarding poor connectivity with the surrounding urban grain and inadequate passive surveillance of public open spaces.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The layout fails to integrate with the wider community due to a lack of pedestrian and cycle connectivity, particularly towards Highfield Estate to the south.
  • The design approach provides poor passive surveillance of public open spaces, with residential units backing onto parks behind 1.8m high walls rather than providing active frontages.
  • The proposed development lacks sufficient architectural variety and distinctiveness, characterized by a uniform design and an overly horizontal emphasis that fails to enhance the local character.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Chapter 4Chapter 6Chapter 11Chapter 12Chapter 13Chapter 14Chapter 17Newbridge Local Area Plan 2013-2019

Decision Document Summary

The applicant proposed a 60-unit residential development on a 1.8ha greenfield site at Morristownbiller, Newbridge. Although the site is appropriately zoned 'C3 New Residential' under the Newbridge Local Area Plan, the Planning Authority found the design approach unfavourable. The refusal centered on the scheme's failure to provide adequate permeability and connectivity to adjacent residential areas, the creation of inactive frontages along public boundaries, and general concerns regarding the q...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.