LRD22A/0930

Large Scale Residential Development LRD permission for development on a site of

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The Planning Authority initially refused permission due to the over-proliferation of Build-to-Rent units, excessive building heights impacting the setting of Dalguise House (a Protected Structure), and inadequate cycle/car parking; however, the Inspector recommends granting permission subject to significant modifications, including the total omission of Block E and height reductions for Blocks B, C, and F.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The Build-to-Rent (BTR) typology is appropriate for this central/accessible location, and the unit mix is acceptable under the transitional arrangements of the 2020 Apartment Guidelines, which take precedence over local mix restrictions.
  • The proposed building heights, specifically the 9-storey Block E, would detrimentally obscure the vista and setting of the Protected Structure (Dalguise House) and conflict with the 'Coastal Fringe' character, necessitating the omission of Block E and the reduction of Blocks B, C, and F by one storey.
  • Provided the scheme is reduced to 387 units and cycle parking is updated to the Sheffield stand standard, the development represents an efficient use of underutilised land that respects the site's architectural heritage.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Objective APolicy Objective PHP18Policy Objective PHP19Policy Objective PHP20Policy Objective PHP27Policy Objective PHP28Policy Objective PHP30Policy Objective PHP35Policy Objective PHP42Policy Objective HER8Policy Objective HER13Section 12.3.3.1Section 12.4.6Table 12.1Appendix 5 (Building Height Strategy)Policy Objective BHS 1

Decision Document Summary

The proposal consists of a Large-Scale Residential Development (LRD) featuring 493 units (490 BTR) on a 3.58ha site in Monkstown, centered around the refurbishment of Dalguise House, a Protected Structure. The site is characterized by mature woodland and a mix of historic and modern structures. While the local authority refused the application on grounds of BTR proliferation and visual dominance, the Inspector argues that national policy support for compact growth and BTR flexibility at accessib...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.

PDF Document Missing

The original decision document for this case could not be linked. This often happens for older cases or those with restricted documentation.

Search for case on ABP