5052/22

Permission for a Build to Rent (BTR) Residential development at a site bounded by numbers 11 & no. 32, Hanover Lane, Dublin 8. Comprising of the construction of 25 no. apartment units (20 no. One bedroom apartments and 5 no. Two bedroom apartments) within a 4 storey over basement block. Residential amenities within the development to include a management office, communal lounge area, basement storage and accessible communal roofs. The proposal also incorporates boundary treatments, 3 No. car parking spaces provision, 43 No. bicycle spaces provision, vehicle access to Hanover Lane, external landscaping, external balconies, connection to existing site services and all associated and ancillary development works.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposal constitutes overdevelopment that is visually incongruous with the historic Architectural Conservation Area, negatively impacts neighboring residential amenities, and lacks sufficient archaeological and access assessments.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The design, scale, and massing of the building fail to respect the historic character and fine grain of the Thomas Street and Environs Architectural Conservation Area.
  • The development would seriously injure the residential amenities of adjacent properties through overshadowing and overbearing impact, while also failing to provide adequate internal amenity for future residents.
  • The application failed to provide a required archaeological impact assessment and demonstrated inadequate access and servicing arrangements for the laneway location.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Policy CHC4Section 11.1.5.15 CHC9Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022

Decision Document Summary

This application proposed a Build to Rent (BTR) residential development on a site at Hanover Lane in the historic Liberties area of Dublin 8. The Planning Authority refused permission because the project's scale and footprint were deemed inappropriate for the Architectural Conservation Area, potentially causing visual injury to the streetscape. Furthermore, the development was considered an overdevelopment of the site that would overshadow neighboring homes, lacked a necessary archaeological ass...
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.