Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommends a grant of permission subject to the omission of the uppermost (fourth) floor and all on-site car parking. The primary rationale is that a five-storey building would be overbearing and out of character with the prevailing 2-3 storey context of Glasthule village, while the site's high accessibility to public transport justifies a car-free development to maximize ground-floor commercial use.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed five-storey height is considered excessive and visually discordant with the established 2-3 storey streetscape, requiring the omission of the top floor to ensure a more appropriate transition in scale.
- Omission of on-site car parking is justified by the site's location within Parking Zone 2 and its proximity to the Glasthule/Sandycove DART station, allowing for increased commercial floor area at ground level.
- The development, as modified by conditions to four storeys and 6 units, represents an acceptable intensification of a brownfield site that aligns with national and local objectives for compact urban growth without injuring residential amenities.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective NC (Neighbourhood Centre)Policy Objective PHP18 (Residential Density)Section 4.3.1.2 (Living-Over-the-Shop)Policy Objective PHP42 (Building Design and Height)Building Height Strategy (Appendix 5)Policy Objective BHS 1 (Increased Height)Section 13.1.2 (Transitional Zonal Areas)Section 12.3.7.7 (Infill)Section 12.3.7.8 (Living over the shop)Section 12.4.5.2 (Car Parking Standards)Table 12.5 (Car Parking Zones)
Decision Document Summary
This report concerns an appeal at 23-27 Glasthule Road, Dublin, for a mixed-use development comprising the demolition of existing commercial structures and the construction of a five-storey building with a café, workshop, and 7 apartments. The site is a corner plot in the heart of Glasthule village, zoned 'Neighbourhood Centre'. While the Planning Authority granted permission, they imposed a condition to remove the top floor and the car parking; the first-party appealed these modifications, and ...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