Latest refusal decisions.

Having regard to the location of a medium-sized, mature street tree adjacent to the subject site, it is not considered possible to create a new vehicular entrance in accordance with Development Plan standards and dishing without the negatively impacting on the tree root zone or removal of the existing street tree. As such, the proposed development, due to its detrimental impact on the street tree located in front of the property, would be contrary to Section 15.6.10 (Tree Removal), Policy GIO41 (Dublin City Tree Strategy 2016) and to Sections 4.3.1 (Dimensions and Surfacing) and 4.3.2 (Impact on Street Trees) under Appendix 5 of the City Development Plan 2022 - 2028. The development would set an undesirable precedent, would prove seriously injurious to property in the vicinity, and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The proposed widening of the vehicular access would be contrary to Section 4.3.1, Appendix 5 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028 by reason that the vehicular access of 3.5m is in excess of Development Plan standards. The widening of vehicular entrance would detract from the convenience of road users and the residential amenity of surrounding properties, would be contrary to the stated policy and would set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments in the area. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. Having regard to the Zoning Objective ‘A’ of the site and Section 12.4 of the Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Development Plan 2022–2028, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed access and services rely on the development outside the site boundary and is further dependent on the implementation of future development on adjacent land. The proposed development, by reason of inadequate suitability of proposed vehicular/pedestrian route, lack of fire tender vehicle access and water service to be dependent on the future development, would constitute a premature development and would constitute an unsatisfactory and uncertain pattern of development, contrary to Section 12.4 Transport of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. Having regard to the location of the site and Specific Local Objective (SLO) 73 of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028, which seeks to limit development along the Brennanstown Road, the proposed development would be contrary to specific local objective SLO 73 of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028, which aims to improve safety along Brennanstown Road. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. Having regard to the location of the proposed development, Policy Objective PHP18 Residential Density, Section 4.3.1 and Section 12.3.3.2 Residential Density of Dún Laoghaire– Rathdown County Development Plan 2022–2028 and the density ranges set out in Table 3.1 in the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlement - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2024), which outlines anticipated residential densities between 40 dph and 80 dph on the subject site. It is considered that the proposed density of 6.7 units per hectare constitutes an unacceptable low density of development within this ‘City - Suburban / Urban Extension’ which would constitute unsustainable use of this accessible and fully serviced site and, as such, would not meet the requirements of Policy Objective PHP18 Residential Density, Section 12.3.3.2 Residential Density of Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Development Plan 2022–2028 nor the guidelines set out in Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlement - Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2024). To permit the proposed development would therefore set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Refusal reason evidence not yet indexed.

1. The unauthorised colour scheme of the painted façade at first floor level wholly dominates the façade of the Protected Structure and has given rise to an overly strident visual effect which has resulted in serious injury to the special architectural character of the Protected Structure, adjoining Protected Structures and the Architectural Conservation Area. The proposed retention of the existing colour scheme to the façade would contravene Policies BHA2 and BHA7 of the Dublin City Council Development Plan 2022-2028, the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities and The Dublin City Council Shopfront Design Guide. The proposal would create an undesirable precedent for similar type development and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The proposed projecting (blade) sign at first floor level, by reason of its form, position and excessive visual prominence, would introduce unnecessary visual clutter to the façade and detract from the architectural character of the Protected Structure. The development does not comply with the Dublin City Council Shopfront Design Guide (p. 25, 2001), which states that projecting signs will not generally be permitted in order to avoid clutter in the streetscape. In addition, having regard to the special architectural interest of the building and its sensitive city centre context, the proposed sign would adversely affect the visual amenities and character of the streetscape, would fail to contribute positively to the setting of the Protected Structure, would create an undesirable precedent for similar type development and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The proposed demolition and loss of a dwelling in the absence of an accompanying proposal for redevelopment of the application site would result in a vacant residentially zoned site for an undetermined period of time. It is considered that the presence of a vacant site in this residential area would seriously injure the residential amenities of properties in the vicinity and would have a negative impact on visual amenity in the area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the site’s Z1 zoning objective ‘To protect, provide and improve residential amenities’ and the vision for residential development in the city as set out in Section 14.7.1 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022 - 2028, would depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would not be in the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Refusal reason evidence not yet indexed.

1. The proposal includes the demolition of the last remaining structures of the historic circular-plan Roundtown housing development which is recorded on the first edition Ordnance Survey map and earlier maps. This building is of historical interest, makes a positive and unique contribution to the historic streetscape and character of Terenure Village and is of local and regional significance. The proposed demolition would be contrary to Policy BHA6 of the Dublin City Development Plan (2022-2028) - ‘Buildings on Historic Maps’ and Policy BHA11 - ‘Rehabilitation and Reuse of Existing Older Buildings’ and would set an undesirable precedent in this regard. The proposal to demolish the structure, rather than incorporate it into the proposed new development, would result in a seriously adverse visual impact to the historic streetscape within the urban village of Terenure, thus being contrary to development plan policy and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. Having regard to the unique characteristics of this prominent corner site, situated on the edge of Terenure village, it is considered that the design of the proposed development fails to adequately respond to the site context, including the historic circle of cottages around the junction, the outline of which partly remains. The proposal, by reason of its scale and massing, would also result in a visually discordant feature, which would fail to successfully integrate into the built form of Terenure village or provide an appropriate transition between the village and adjoining residential areas on Terenure Road West and Templeogue Road. The proposal would therefore be seriously injurious to the visual amenities and character of the surrounding area and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. The subject site is located on lands zoned Objective GB which seeks "to protect and enhance the open nature of lands between urban areas". The proposed development, comprising 6no. enclosed padel courts, ancillary buildings, lighting infrastructure, fencing, access arrangements, hardstanding and 20no. car parking spaces, would introduce a substantial urbanising form of development on greenfield lands within the Green Belt. Furthermore, the site is located within a mature wooded landscape containing significant tree cover and hedgerow features, forms part of the Glendoo Mountain–Shanganagh Ecological Corridor and is adjacent to a Locally Important Site for Biodiversity. The proposed development would result in the encroachment and fragmentation of an area which contributes significantly to ecological connectivity, biodiversity, landscape character and green infrastructure within the area. The Planning Authority considers that the proposal would neither protect nor enhance the open nature of the lands, would adversely affect the established character and function of the Green Belt and would be detrimental to biodiversity, ecological connectivity, mature tree cover and green infrastructure. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Objective GB zoning for the lands as it is contrary to Policies GIB18, GIB20, GIB22, GIB23, GIB25 and GIB27 of the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022–2028 and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. Due to endangerment of public safety as a result of additional traffic and vulnerable road users associated with the proposed development and the precedent which the proposed development would set on Quinn’s Road, which do not currently have adequate pedestrian / cyclist facilities - i.e. the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users or otherwise, as per Clause 4 of the FOURTH SCHEDULE (Reasons for the Refusal of Permission which Exclude Compensation) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.
3. The Planning Authority considers that the proposal detracts from the historic landscape character and setting of Clontra House a Protected Structure of National Importance and would result in an inappropriate subdivision and urbanisation of its historic grounds. The proposal would therefore adversely affect the character and setting of a Protected Structure and would be contrary to the heritage policies and objectives of the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022–2028 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The proposed amendment, which would significantly extend café opening hours into the late evening and early morning throughout the week beyond those currently permitted, would generate additional noise and disturbance that would significantly undermine the residential amenities of the area within which the commercial operation is located. This would be contrary to the objectives of the Z1 zoning that governs the area and would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity. The development would therefore, by itself and by virtue of the precedent it would set for similar undesirable developments in the vicinity, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The proposed development, by virtue of its scale, bulk and massing in relation to the existing roof profile, reads as excessive and visually overbearing relative to the size of the existing dwelling and therefore fails to comply with Section 12.3.7.1 Extensions to Dwellings (iv) Alterations at Roof/Attic Level of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022–2028. The proposal would therefore be injurious to the amenities of adjoining properties and could set an undesirable precedent for similar development within the area.

Having regard to the extent and location of the signage both at ground and first floor level to the front of the site in the public realm, it is considered that the cumulative impact of the signs and outdoor seating areas would seriously injure the residential and visual amenities of nearby residential properties, in terms of noise and general disturbance. The development to be retained would therefore be contrary to the Z1 zoning objective for the site, which seeks to protect, provide and improve residential amenities, to the provisions of Section 15.7.5 of the current Dublin City Development Plan (2022-2028) and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The proposed dormer extensions, by reason of their cumulative scale, length, bulk and massing, would not constitute subordinate additions to the existing roof form and would read as an additional storey at roof level. The proposed development would result in an incongruous and visually intrusive addition to the dwelling, would disrupt the established symmetry of the semi-detached pair, and would represent a significant departure from the existing character and form of the roofscape. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Section 12.3.7.1 Extensions to Dwellings (iv) Alterations at Roof/Attic Level of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Furthermore, if permitted, the development would set an undesirable precedent for similar forms of development within the area.

The proposal development for an additional two floors would result in an unacceptable form of development by virtue of bulk, scale, massing and disjointed design and is considered to adversely affecting the visual amenity of neighbouring properties. The proposed development would set a harmful and undesirable precedent contrary to the Z1 zoning objective ‘To protect and improve residential amenities’ and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The development to be retained constitutes an ad hoc, haphazard overdevelopment of the site which is incongruous with the pattern of development within the surrounding area and together with the provision of substandard residential amenity and substandard parking arrangements would be contrary to Section 14.10.3; Objectives DMSO21, DMSO27, DMSO28, DMSO32 and SPQH42 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. To permit the development would set an undesirable precedent which when considered cumulatively would be contrary to the RS Zoning Objective which seeks to ‘Provide for residential development and protect and improve residential amenity’.

The development to be retained, having regard to the constrained nature of the site which would be further reduced in area following the implementation of the Swords to City Centre CBC Scheme (BusConnects), would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard and would conflict with the approved Swords to City Centre CBC Scheme. Therefore the proposed development contravenes Objective DMSO118 and Objective CM024 in the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. The Council's Rural Settlement Strategy permits a maximum of 2 no. rural dwellings on RU zoned lands per existing house. The applicant's parents and sister have each been granted permission for a new rural dwelling on RU zoned lands since the 19th of October 1999 and, as such, the maximum number of rural dwellings associated with the applicant's family has been reached. The applicant has not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would allow another rural dwelling associated with the family home to be permitted. The proposed development directly conflicts with the Rural Settlement Strategy of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 and would be contrary to the Ministerial Guidelines and to the over-arching national policy of the National Planning Framework. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The proposed development, by reason of its siting within an open agricultural field which is not appropriately screened by existing trees/hedgerow or clustered with existing development would be out of character with the existing development at this location; would appear as an unduly obtrusive and visually prominent feature at this rural location within a high lying agricultural landscape character type area; and would therefore materially contravene Objective DMSO41 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. To permit the development as proposed would be seriously injurious to the visual and rural amenities of the area, would set an undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate development in this location and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. The proposed development would contravene materially Condition No. 3 attached to an existing permission for the development under Reg. Ref. FW24A/0465E which required that the entire site should be used as a single dwelling unit for residential purposes and shall not be sub-divided or used for any commercial purposes, and the extension shall not be sold, let (including short-term letting), leased or otherwise transferred or conveyed, by way of sale or letting. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The subject site is zoned RS Residential with the objective to provide for residential development and protect and improve residential amenity within the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. The development by virtue of its layout and form is indicative of overdevelopment of the site. In this regard the development materially contravenes the RS zoning objective, and contravenes Sections 14.10.3 and 14.10.4, Policy SPQHP41, SPQHP42 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 and will set an inappropriate precedent for similar forms of development. The development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. The applicant has failed to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the retention development would not lead to inappropriate parking, thereby endangering public safety by reason of a conflict between pedestrian and road user.