3601/22
Planning permission is sought for demolition of existing single structure to the rear, canopy cover and detached garage structure at 34 Ratra Park and the construction of new single storey detached dwelling to the rear and associated works. The proposed dwelling consists of single bedroom, WC, store and combined living/kitchen space with front pedestrian access from Conor Clune Road. Widening of the existing pedestrian entrance on 34 Ratra Park to a vehicular entrance for 2 vehicles to serve both dwellings is also sought.
Core Refusal Reason
The development was refused primarily because it would be visually obtrusive within the streetscape and fail to provide a satisfactory standard of residential amenity for future occupiers due to poor outlook and overshadowing from adjacent high boundary walls.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposal qualitatively fails to provide an acceptable standard of amenity for future occupiers as habitable room openings would be severely curtailed by overshadowing and limited outlook.
- The siting, design, and utilitarian appearance of the dwelling would be visually obtrusive and intrusive within the established streetscape context.
- While technical matters such as access, parking provision, and water services are considered acceptable, they do not mitigate the fundamental incompatibility with the visual and residential amenities of the area.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The application seeks permission for the demolition of a rear extension and garage at 34 Ratra Park to facilitate the construction of a 44sqm detached, single-storey, one-bedroom infill dwelling. The site is a corner plot at the junction of Ratra Park and Conor Clune Road. The Inspector notes that while the proposal meets basic quantitative standards and aligns with the Z1 zoning for residential development, it is qualitatively deficient. The Inspector argues that the forward siting of the dwell...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