Core Reason for the Refused Part
The first-floor rear extension was refused due to its excessive scale, gabled design, and massing, which would result in significant overshadowing and visual overbearance of the adjoining property to the east, while being architecturally incongruous with the established hipped-roof character of the semi-detached pair.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The ground-floor front and rear extensions are considered permissible as they do not significantly injure the residential or visual amenities of the area and comply with zoning objectives.
- The proposed first-floor rear extension fails to be subservient to the host dwelling and introduces a gabled roof form that is at odds with the hipped roof design characterizing the semi-detached group.
- Due to the northerly orientation and proximity to the eastern boundary, the first-floor element would cause an unacceptable increase in overshadowing and loss of daylight to the rear of No. 19 Landscape Avenue.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Section 12.3.7 (Additional accommodation in existing built-up areas)Section 12.3.7.1 (Guidance on extensions and alterations)Section 12.3.7.1(i) (Extensions to the front)Section 12.3.7.1(ii) (Extensions to the rear)Section 12.3.7.1(iv) (Alterations at Roof/Attic Level)Section 12.8.7.1 (Separation distances)Section 12.8.3.3 (Private open space)Land Use Zoning Objective 'A'
Decision Document Summary
This report concerns a First-Party appeal against a split decision by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council regarding a proposed two-storey rear extension and single-storey front extension at 17 Landscape Avenue, Churchtown. The site consists of a semi-detached house in a mature residential setting. While the Planning Authority granted permission for the ground-floor works, they refused the first-floor rear element (Condition No. 2). The Inspector agreed with this assessment, noting that the fir...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