Popular Wicklow seafront coffee house refused permission for extension

One submission, from the nearby Star Leisure, backed the proposals and remarked how a year-round facility would be “invaluable at our end of Bray seafront . . . especially for those with mobility issues with parking facilities beside them”.

Also in support of the plans was Bray Tourism’s Eugene Finnegan, who said the additional exterior would provide a “more appealing all-season facility”.

However, concerns were raised over the structure, which it was argued does not complement the existing granite building, while questions were also asked about the structural integrity of the extension in extreme weather conditions, particularly with regard to its location on the seafront.

Permission was also sought by the applicant, David Tew, for the permanent construction of a single-storey contemporary style building as an extension to the existing original structure, to replace the existing structure for use as a coffee shop sit-down area. This too has been refused.

While planning permission was previously granted for an awning attached to the building, it was noted that in May this year, the structure, on public land, was subject to a legal dispute with WCC for the development that has taken place and the current application extends beyond the area occupied by the permission granted.

It was also noted that the lands in question are zoned public open space under the Bray Municipal District Local Area Plan and proposals to utilise part of this public amenity space for private commercial use would be contrary to the zoning objective.

Furthermore, it was considered that the timber structure currently on site for which retention permission is sought is not in keeping with the character of the existing granite boathouse building due to its design and finish.

In its recommendation to refuse permission, the chief executive set out two reasons. Firstly, that “the applicant has failed to demonstrate sufficient legal interest in the site” and “the area on which the existing extension is located and proposed extension is to be located would appear to be public land”.

Secondly, it was decided that the “development proposed for retention is considered to be visually obtrusive, detracts from the visual amenity of the area and sets a precedent for similar type structures along the seafront area and its retention would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”