WEB1354/22

Application for Planning Permission is sought for alterations and additions to the existing two storey terraced house at 8 Grosvenor Place, Rathmines, Dublin 6. The development will consist of (1) new first floor extension to the rear, & (2) all associated site works.

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The proposed first-floor rear extension's scale, depth (5.66m), and gable roof design would result in significant overshadowing and visual overbearance of the adjoining residential property, failing to provide a subordinate addition in a sensitive Z2 Residential Conservation Area.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The 5.66m depth and gable roof of the proposed extension are excessive in height and mass, creating significant overshadowing and a visually overbearing impact on the neighbor at No. 10 Grosvenor Place.
  • Condition 2(a) must be amended to restrict the external depth to 3.5m and require a flat roof redesign to ensure the extension sits below the original eaves level and remains subordinate to the host dwelling.
  • Condition 2(b) requires amendment to correctly omit the north-facing windows (previously misidentified as south-facing) to prevent undue overlooking and preserve the privacy of adjacent residents.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028Zoning 'Z2' (Residential Neighbourhoods (Conservation Areas))Section 14.7.2 (Residential Conservation Areas)Chapter 11 (Built Heritage and Archaeology)Chapter 15 (Development Standards)Volume 2, Appendix 18 (Extensions to the rear)Volume 2, Table 2 (Site coverage)

Decision Document Summary

This Inspector's Report concerns a First Party appeal against Condition No. 2(a) and (b) attached to a grant of planning permission for a first-floor rear extension at No. 8 Grosvenor Place, Rathmines. The subject site is a mid-terrace period redbrick house situated within a Z2 Residential Conservation Area. The Planning Authority originally restricted the extension's depth to 3.5m to protect residential amenity. The Inspector supports this restriction, arguing that the applicant's proposed 5.66...
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