Fingal County Council · F26A0560E · Dublin
Latest linked evidence
F26A0560E · Permission refused
Open official sourceIndexed observation: Refuse Permission. Read the linked decisions for their full terms.
This page connects records for one planning case. Separate permissions, amendments and phases may belong to a wider development. A notified commencement date does not confirm that building work started.
Source history
F26A0560E
F26A0560E
Permission refused
Evidence
Only exact linked records appear here. A missing appeal, commencement or completion entry means that evidence has not been established on this page. It does not prove that the event never happened.
Planning scale and individual notice or phase quantities remain separate. Notice quantities are not added into a development total or completion percentage.
The council’s formal grounds for this decision. Planner assessment and later appeal outcomes are separate.
Having regard to the documentation submitted with the application, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to show compliance with the rural settlement strategy of the Fingal County Development Plan 2023-2029 as it relates to the South Shore Area including Objective SPQHO92 of the current Development Plan. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would contravene materially Objective SPQHO92 of the Fingal County Development Plan, would be contrary to the Ministerial Guidelines and to the over-arching national policy in the National Planning Framework. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official final decision · PDF page 2Based on the information submitted, the size and scale of the development proposed on site and its proximity to an existing stream which flows downstream into the Rogerstown Estuary SPA (004015) it is concluded that in the absence of a Screening for Appropriate Assessment as part of the application there is a gap in the information available to the Planning Authority and it is not possible to conclude with certainty whether or not the proposed development either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, in view of best scientific knowledge and in view of the sites’ conservation objectives, would be likely to have a significant effect on any designated European Sites (in particular the Rogerstown Estuary SPA (004015)).The development as proposed, is therefore contrary to Objective DMSO1 and Objective SPQHO96 of the Fingal Development Plan, and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official final decision · PDF page 2Having regard to the absence of a Flood Risk Screening Assessment as required under the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009), the proposed development would be prejudicial to public health and the amenity of the surrounding area as the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the development would not be at risk of flooding. The development, as proposed, is therefore contrary to Objectives DMSO212, DMSO215, IUO16 and Map Based Objective 23 of Appendix 8 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official final decision · PDF page 2PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ca6f27bb8fa3409a5d5da8c36687b098fdc009431d3d25abc708bf3a42281d1f