WEB1716/22

PERMISSION & RETENTION: The development consists of the retention permission to the existing two storey pitched roof extension to the side of the existing house which includes two self contained units, one on the ground floor and one on the first floor. The units share a single side entrance door facing Woodbine Road which is separate to the main entrance to the existing house facing Woodbine Park. Also included is the planning permission for alterations to existing front boundary wall with the creation of new vehicular access to existing house. The development is to include all ancillary site works and landscaping as required.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed subdivision into three dwellings results in substandard residential units that fail to meet national floor area and open space requirements, representing overdevelopment of the site.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The two one-bedroom apartments are substandard in terms of gross floor area, bedroom size, and aggregate living space, failing to meet the requirements of national apartment design guidelines.
  • The provision of private and communal open space is unsatisfactory and does not comply with development plan standards, leading to a loss of amenity for future residents.
  • The creation of a secondary vehicular access and additional in-curtilage parking is considered excessive and contrary to the transport objectives of the Dublin City Development Plan.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Specific Planning Policy Requirement 3 (SPPR 3)Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments Guidelines for Planning Authorities (as amended 2020)Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022

Decision Document Summary

The proposal sought retention permission for an extension and the subdivision of an existing house at 2A Woodbine Park, Raheny, into three autonomous dwellings. Dublin City Council refused the application on the grounds that the resulting apartments provided substandard living conditions, specifically failing to meet minimum internal floor areas and open space requirements. Furthermore, the development was deemed an overdevelopment of the site that would set an undesirable precedent and included...
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.