Core Refusal Reason
The Planning Authority initially refused permission citing visual obtrusiveness and a proliferation of structures contrary to Local Objective 111, but the Inspector recommended a grant of permission, concluding that the proposal provides essential network coverage and integrates into the skyline without significant adverse visual impact.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- There is a clear technical justification for the development to address 4G and 5G coverage deficits in the Bayside area for both the applicant and other providers.
- The 'chimney/vent' design approach and the use of shrouds matching the building's cladding effectively mitigate visual impact, making the installation appear as a natural vertical extension of the rooftop.
- Clustering telecoms infrastructure on a single building is consistent with national guidelines and is preferable to a proliferation of sites or the installation of a more obtrusive standalone 30m monopole in the locality.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Local Objective 111Objective IT07Objective IT08Policy IUP36Objective IUO53Objective IUO54Objective DMSO18Objective DMSO228Section 11.8.1Section 11.8.4Section 11.8.5Section 14.4.9Section 14.20.9Section 14.20.11.1
Decision Document Summary
The applicant, Vantage Towers Limited, sought planning permission for telecommunications infrastructure including 6 antennas, a microwave dish, and associated equipment on the rooftop of the 4-storey Bayside Shopping Centre. Fingal County Council refused the application on the grounds that it would result in a visual proliferation of structures that would be detrimental to the amenities of the residential area. The Inspector's assessment notes that the site is zoned 'Local Centre' where such str...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.