22572

the construction of a detached apartment building (three storey with part two storey), consisting of 10 residential units (8 No. one beds and 2 No. studio apartments), single storey detached bin store and bike store in lieu of previously approved 1 No. detached house under planning Ref: 18/1367 and all associated site works. Revised by Significant Further Information which consists of reduction in the number of apartments proposed from 10 no. to 6 no. as follows: Permission for the construction of a detached apartment building (three storey), consisting of 6 residential units (3 no. one bed apartments and 3 no. two bed apartments), single storey detached bin store and bike store in lieu of previously approved 1 no. detached house under planning ref 18/1367 and all associated site works

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed development fails to provide a high standard of residential amenity and passive surveillance, while presenting unacceptable traffic and density impacts on a restricted site adjacent to a busy regional road and a filling station.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The layout and design fail to provide adequate passive surveillance and high-quality architectural treatment, particularly concerning the externalised access and the side elevation facing the access road.
  • The proximity of the proposed units to the site boundaries and the adjacent filling station creates unacceptable risks to the residential amenity of future occupants regarding noise, light, and the quality of private open space.
  • The proposed density and parking provision are considered excessive for the restricted site, posing a risk of increased traffic congestion on the R445 regional road.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Objective SRO1Section 17.4.6Section 17.2.4Section 17.2.5Policy WM-7Policy WM-15Section 17.4.7

Decision Document Summary

Blue Hume Ltd sought permission for a 10-unit apartment building on a 0.077ha infill site at Naas Road, Newbridge, Co. Kildare. Although the site is zoned for residential use, the planning authority identified fundamental flaws in the design, including poor passive surveillance and inadequate separation distances from a neighboring filling station. The refusal is grounded in the development's failure to meet standards for residential amenity, concerns over traffic impact on a congested regional ...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.