Core Refusal Reason
The development is considered inappropriate because it would consolidate unauthorized development and is based on inaccurate and misleading documentation. Substantively, the extension's scale, height, and positioning result in a visually incongruous and overbearing impact that seriously injures the residential amenities of the adjoining property and the character of the streetscape.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The submitted documentation, including drawings and public notices, contains significant inaccuracies regarding ground levels, floor areas, and site context, preventing an informed planning decision.
- The extension projects excessively beyond the established building line and lacks subservience to the host dwelling, appearing visually dominant and out of character with the uniform appearance of the terrace.
- The height and scale of the boundary-side extension create an overbearing impact and lead to undue overshadowing and loss of natural light for the neighboring property at No. 2 Saint Luke's Crescent.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective 'A'Policy Objective PHP19Section 12.3.7Section 12.3.7.1Section 12.3.7.1(i)Section 12.3.7.1(iii)Section 12.4.8.3
Decision Document Summary
This report examines a first-party appeal for retention permission at No. 3 Saint Luke's Crescent, Milltown, involving modifications to previously permitted extensions. The Inspector identified fundamental procedural issues, noting that the application drawings misrepresented the actual development on-site, particularly concerning ground levels and the quantum of floor area. The Inspector's primary arguments focus on the negative impact on the residential amenity of the neighbor (No. 2) due to t...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