5089/22
Permission for development comprising: (i) Demolition of the existing two-storey dwelling house (157.5sq.m) on the site; (ii) Development of a residential scheme, totalling 4 no. residential houses (comprising 4 no. 3 bed, 3-storey houses). The development will be served by 18 no. bicycle parking spaces to be provided at surface level and 5 no. car parking spaces (including 1 no. mobility impaired user parking space). (iii) Associated site and infrastructural works are also proposed, which include: foul and surface water drainage, landscaping, boundary treatments, electric gate at site entrance and all associated site development works necessary to facilitate the development.
Core Refusal Reason
The proposed development was refused due to the unjustified demolition of a building of architectural significance (Kedleston), the adverse impact on the setting and character of an adjacent Protected Structure, and the provision of inadequate private open space which constitutes overdevelopment.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The design, height, and proximity of the dwellings would materially and adversely affect the character, context, and setting of the adjacent Protected Structure and result in unacceptable overlooking.
- The provision of inadequate private open space for the proposed four-bedroom houses (including studies deemed as bedrooms) represents overdevelopment that would injure the residential amenity of future occupants.
- The demolition of 'Kedleston' is not justified as the building makes a positive contribution to the architectural relationship with the Protected Structure and the character of the wider area.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The proposal involves the demolition of 'Kedleston', a 1930s detached dwelling, and the construction of four detached houses on an L-shaped site at 60 Inchicore Road, Dublin 8. The site is constrained by its position behind a Protected Structure (a former church) and its proximity to the Dublin-Limerick railway line. While the applicant sought to address previous refusal reasons by reducing the number of units and lowering site levels, the Inspector concluded that the proximity to the Protected ...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