Refusal decisions · 21–27 Sep 2026

1. The proposed residential development requires the development of HA – High Amenity zoned lands in order to facilitate the development. Residential development is only permissible on HA zoned lands subject to an applicant demonstrating their compliance with the Councils Rural Settlement Strategy, as set out under section 3.5.15.3 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. The applicant has failed to submit any documentation demonstrating their compliance with the Councils Rural Settlement Strategy and, as such, the proposed residential development would contravene the HA zoning objective and the Rural Settlement Strategy of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 in its current format. Furthermore, the need to develop on the HA zoned lands is considered unjustified given the ample provision of RS – Residential zoned lands at this location. The proposed development appears to only be able to achieve required separation distances and private open space provisions through the development of HA zoned lands and thus, it is considered the proposal represents overdevelopment of the RS zoned lands at this location. The proposed development would be contrary objectives of the relevant Development Plan, and, therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The submitted floor plans for the proposed residential dwellings do not demonstrate full compliance with the internal room area and width requirements for new houses detailed under the Quality Housing for Sustainable Communities Best Practice Guidelines (2007) and the proposed development is considered to represent a substandard form of development which would contravene section 28 Ministerial Guidelines and Objective DMSO19 & sections 14.6.1, 14.6.4 & 14.8.1 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. The proposed site layout plan does not demonstrate compliance with the required 2.3m side-to-side separation distances of Objective DMSO26 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 and these standards are readily achievable on the site given the greenfield nature of the site. The proposed development would be contrary to an objective of the relevant Development Plan and, therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

On the basis of the above considerations, I decide to refuse permission under the terms of Section 34(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) for the reason set out below. 1. Having regard to character of the existing house and the houses in the vicinity, it is considered that the addition of dormer windows to the roofscape would be incongruous with the established character of the building and the streetscape at this location. In this regard, the proposed development would be contrary to Section 12.3.7.1 of the County Development Plan and would be injurious to the visual amenities of the area.

Having regard to the plans and particulars lodged with the application on 11/03/2026, by way of Additional Information on 13/07/2026, and by way of Clarification of Additional Information on 01/09/2026, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the application has been made by a person who has sufficient legal estate or interest in the full extent of lands identified within the redline boundary of land/s subject to this application. Additionally, it is considered that a grant of a permission for the subject proposal may result in the consolidation of unauthorised development at the subject site, which if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for similar development which in themselves and cumulatively would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Having regard to the design and siting of subject dwelling, which consists of a house in a side garden, it is considered that the proposed development fails to accord with the provisions of Section 12.3.7.5 'Corner, Side Garden sites' of the County Development Plan 2022-2028, by reason of the poor relationship with the neighbouring sites along Holly Park road, resulting in the visually overbearing impacts on the neighbouring sites. Furthermore, it is considered that the scale of the proposed dwelling exceeds the capacity of the site to absorb same, due the location of the substation to the front of the site and the resultant layout and depth of the proposed dwelling resulting in a poor visual relationship. Accordingly, to permit the proposed development would contravene the provisions of the County Development Plan and set an undesirable precedent for similar development in the area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. 1.Having regard to the siting and proximity of block 8 to the north eastern boundary of the site, with windows and balconies in close proximity to the recreational facilities in Herzog Park, and also the extent of windows on the northern gable elevation of the building, it is considered that the proposed development would seriously injure the amenities of the adjoining properties to the north and east, and may also impede future development potential of the lands to the east. The proposed development would also seriously injure the amenities of the future occupiers of the apartments, due to noise and light related issues from the adjoining recreational uses. The proposed development therefore would be contrary to the Z1 & Z2 zoning objective for the site and to Section 15.13.4 of the Dublin City Development Plan (2022-2028), in relation to backland sites, and therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. 2. Having regard to the length, height and orientation of house block 01, located in the rear garden of number 7 Wasdale Grove, including the proposal for a large dormer roof extension to the existing house at number 7, it is considered that the proposed development would result in an overbearing form of development when viewed from the adjoining property at number 8 Wasdale Grove, and result in overlooking issues form the large dormer window. The proposed development would therefore seriously injure the residential and visual amenities of the adjoining property at number 8 Wasdale Grove, which would be contrary to the Z1 zoning objective and to Appendix 18 Section 5 of the Dublin City Development Plan (2022-2028) in relation to dormer windows, and therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. 3. Having regard to the proposal for three storey houses in close proximity to the boundary to the west and also to the rear of properties along Victoria Road, including a number of terraces at first floor level, it is considered that the proposal would result in an overbearing form of development and overlooking issues. In particular, house blocks 02, 03, 04 and 07 may appear overbearing and result in overlooking from the rear terraces at first floor level, when viewed from Cremorne Development and houses on Victoria Road. The proposed development would be contrary to the Z1 and Z2 zoning objectives, would seriously injure the visual and residential amenities of properties in the area, and would be contrary to Policy BHA9 which seeks to protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area and its setting. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
4. 4. Having regard to the location and amount of public and communal open space proposed, it is considered that the proposal fails to provide sufficient public open space for a scheme of this size, which would be contrary to section 15.8.6 of the Dublin City Development Plan which sets out a public open space requirement for residential developments of 10% of the overall site area. The proposal would therefore seriously injure the residential amenities of the future occupants of the scheme, which would be contrary to the zoning objective for the site, and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
5. 5.Having regard to the proposed vehicular access arrangement and associated public realm works, the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the proposed access can achieve the visibility standards set out in DMURS. Furthermore, the proposed access is dependent on alterations to existing on-street parking arrangements on Victoria Road and works within the public realm outside the applicant's control, for which agreement has not been demonstrated. In the absence of satisfactory evidence that the proposed access can be delivered in a safe and effective manner, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development would provide for safe vehicular and pedestrian access. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. Having regard to the scale and range of facilities proposed, including group spaces, gallery/exhibition accommodation, function space, childcare programming, café facilities, outdoor recreational facilities and other ancillary accommodation, along with the stated cultural and educational objectives of the development and the stated intention to serve a national, as well as local, catchment, the proposed development cannot be considered only as a 'community centre', which are envisaged in the South Dublin County Development Plan 2022-2028 (CDP) as serving a local catchment, and 'childcare facility', but also constitutes a 'Cultural Use' and 'Place of Worship', all as per the definitions in Appendix 6 of the CDP. All of these uses are open for consideration on RU-zoned lands in Table 12.16 of the CDP, but only in limited circumstances, including in existing premises and in Villages to serve local needs, which do not apply in this instance. Therefore, the proposed development would materially contravene the RU zoning objective for the subject site and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The proposed development would result in the intensification of use of a substandard rural road network, which is narrow in width, lacks dedicated pedestrian facilities and public lighting. It would therefore endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard. The traffic and road safety concerns arising from the proposed development cannot be satisfactorily addressed through a request for additional information alone, as the deficiencies identified are considered fundamental to the current proposal and would require a level of infrastructural intervention and design reassessment extending beyond the scope of the current application. Accordingly, the proposed development, in its current form, would be contrary to the provisions of the South Dublin County Development Plan 2022-2028, in particular SM5 Objective 4, which seeks: 'To prioritise safety on rural roads and junctions, while considering the protection of biodiversity, green infrastructure and rural character present in roadside trees, hedgerows and banks, and so on'. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Planning Permission be REFUSED for the following reason: 1.The applicant has not demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, a genuine need to reside in proximity to their employment or a genuine need for an additional dwelling in the rural area. While it is acknowledged that the applicant's stated employment relates to the management and operation of Ballinascorney Golf Club, insufficient information and supporting documentary evidence have been submitted to establish a clear and compelling justification for a one-off dwelling at this location. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy Objective PHP23 - Management of One-off Housing and Section 12.3.10 - One-Off Housing in the Countryside of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028, as well as the stated zoning objective 'To protect and improve rural amenity and to provide for the development of agriculture', and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

RECOMMENDATION Having regard to the above, I recommend that pursuant to Section 42(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, the Extension of Duration of Permission be refused for the following reason: 1. The Planning Authority notes that the duration of the permission has been extended twice previously. Therefore, the criteria set under Section 42(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 are not met.

1. Notwithstanding the location of the site relative to existing and planned public transport provision, it is considered that justification has not been demonstrated for the proposed density of 291dph, which would substantially exceed the maximum density range of 50-250dph for a ‘City - Urban Neighbourhoods’ area, as defined within the 2024 Compact Settlements Guidelines. Having regard to same, it is the opinion of the Planning Authority that the development as proposed would not accord with the provisions of QDP8 High Quality Design – Building Height and Density Guide (BHDG) Objectives 1 and 2 of the 2022-2028 CDP. It is considered that the proposed density together with insufficient public open space, insufficient green space factor score, insufficient play spaces, poor access to sunlight performance in terms of 24% of units failing to achieve the minimum 1.5hr sunlight to a habitable room as recommended in BRE 209:2022 and surface water attenuation, are in combination indicative of overdevelopment of the subject site which would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The proposal has not adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the subject development would not result in adverse impacts on the residential amenity of units within the subject scheme by way of potential inward noise and odour, and that the proposed development of this site would not give rise to isolated piecemeal pockets of residential development that are disconnected from shops, amenities and/or other residences. It is therefore considered that the proposed development has not demonstrated compliance with the criteria of Section 12.9.1 Regeneration Zone of the 2022-2028 CDP. The proposal, if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments, which would in themselves and cumulatively, be harmful to proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

I recommend that a decision to REFUSE PERMISSION be made under the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) for the following reasons:- Having regard to the nature of the dwelling which provides for an independent two bedroom dwelling and to the inadequate quantum of private open space proposed, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development fails to accord to Section 12.8.3.3 Private Open Space of the County Development Plan 2022-2028 and SPPR 2 of the Sustainable Residential Developments and Compact Settlement Guidelines by reason of the 18.5 sq.m. of private amenity space proposed. Furthermore, additional concerns arise in respect of the quality of the rear amenity space proposed, by reason of its orientation, as well as the reduction in usable open space to the front of the dwelling due to the siting of the bin stores, bike storage areas and general access routes within same. Accordingly, to permit the proposed development would set an undesirable precedent for similar development in the area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. Having regard to the location of the site within a transitional zone between Grants Row and Grattan Street and the adjoining residential conservation area to the north and north-east, the Planning Authority considers that the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development would not result in an overconcentration of tourist accommodation in the immediate area. Such overconcentration would result in an unacceptable intensification of activity, including increased night-time activity, noise and disturbance, within the adjoining residential area, to the serious detriment of the residential amenities of that area, and would fail to provide an appropriate transition in land use between the two areas. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy CEE28 (Visitor Accommodation), Section 15.14.2 (Bed and Breakfast/Guesthouses) and Section 14.6 (Transitional Zone Areas) of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028 and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. 2. The proposed development fails to provide for adequate dining, kitchen and laundry facilities to cater for a Tourist Hostel of this scale. The proposed development would therefore result in over intensification of this site which would be seriously injurious to the residential amenities of the area and would be contrary to Section 15.14.2 (Bed and Breakfast/Guesthouses) of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposal would create a precedent for similar type development and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.