Prospect House proposals refused planning permission
PLANS for the restoration of Prospect House on Stocking Lane in Rathfarnham and the construction of a 22-unit apartment block on surrounding lands have been refused planning permission.
The contentious plans attracted “a considerable number” of third-party submissions from residents of nearby Prospect Manor, according to South Dublin County Council.
The plans included the internal modification, reconfiguration, and refurbishment of and extension to Prospect House.
The renovation and modification of its associated coach house to provide for a four-bed dwelling with associated private open space and car-parking provision was included.
The re-opening of a gap between Prospect House and its detached coach house to the rear to provide a gated access into the new communal gardens proposed to the west of Prospect House forms part of the proposal.
Permission was also sought for the reconstruction of the Gate Lodge, which applicant MSJA stated is “in ruins”, to provide for a two-bed, single-storey dwelling with associated private open space and car-parking.
The apartment portion of the development is to consist of one three-apartment block, plus setback penthouse level, to the western side of Prospect House to provide for 22 residential units.
The breakdown of the residential units is 11 one-bedroom units and 11 two-bedroom units, over a single-storey basement comprising a total of 25 car-parking spaces, two motorbike spaces and 40 bicycle-parking spaces.
The plans attracted several submissions from local residents, whose points of concern include the density and scale of the development, the potential for overlooking existing properties, and parking issues.
This month, South Dublin County Council refused permission for the development on a number of grounds, including the view that it would “detract” from the Protected Structure of Prospect House.
The council noted in their decision that there was evidence in the documents provided that works, such as the installation of fire alarms, lighting and service upgrades were carried out with permission.
It further stated that the applicant failed to provide a Green Infrastructure Plan and that an adequate Ecological Impact Assessment had not been carried out.
