Fingal County Council · F26A0553E · Dublin
Latest linked evidence
F26A0553E · 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
F26A0553E
F26A0553E
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.
Source note: The access assessment refers to Section 14.12.3, while the adopted second ground calls it Table 14.12.3. The same identifier and each source label are preserved without correction.
The proposed development, by reason of its scale, massing, design and material finishes would constitute an unduly obtrusive and visually prominent feature at this rural location within a highly sensitive landscape character type area and would thereby seriously injure the visual amenity, character and appearance of the rural area. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy SPQHP55, Objective SPQHO84 – Table 14.9 Design Guidelines for Rural Dwellings of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. The proposed development would be seriously injurious to the visual and rural amenities of the area and, therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official final decision · PDF page 10The applicant has failed to accurately include the full extent of works proposed including the new right of way and existing site entrance within the redline boundary of the proposed development site. Additionally part of a shed is located within the redline boundary of the application site. Based on information submitted & site boundary outlined in red, this would preclude access to the site. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Objective SPQHO68 & Table 14.12.3 design guidelines for rural dwellings.
Official final decision · PDF page 10, 11PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 85610e83e9a79184effd326dcb6f499c91310bcb7926d186662a6c14ec0f7429