Core Refusal Reason
The proposed fourth-floor rooftop extension would significantly detract from the unique character, original design, and architectural integrity of the Protected Structure ('Verona') and would result in a dominant and obtrusive visual impact on the surrounding streetscape.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The rooftop extension represents a significant departure from the original modernist form of the Protected Structure, compromising its architectural coherence and integrity.
- The substantial height increase and design of the additional floor would be visually obtrusive, failing to integrate harmoniously with the hillside and the established roofline of the street.
- While elements like the vehicular entrance and window replacements were found acceptable in principle, the rooftop addition is fundamentally contrary to Policy Objective HER8 and Section 12.3.7.1 (iv) of the Development Plan.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Policy Objective HER8 (Work to Protected Structures)Section 12.11.2.1 (Works to a Protected Structure)Section 12.3.7.1(iv) (Alterations at Roof/Attic Level)Zoning Objective APolicy Objective T19 (Car Parking Standards)Policy Objective T28 (Road Safety)Section 11.4.1 (Record of Protected Structures)Policy Objective HER7Section 12.4.8 (Vehicular Entrances and Hardstanding Areas)Section 12.3.5.2 (Separation Between Blocks)
Decision Document Summary
The applicant sought permission for the comprehensive upgrade and extension of 'Verona', a three-storey modernist house in Dalkey designed by John O'Gorman (1947-1948) and designated as a Protected Structure. The proposal included a fourth-floor rooftop extension, a new vehicular entrance with a raised car deck and turntable, and internal remodeling. The Planning Authority refused permission due to concerns regarding the impact on the Protected Structure and potential overlooking. On appeal, the...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.
PDF Document Missing
The original decision document for this case could not be linked. This often happens for older cases or those with restricted documentation.
Search for case on ABP