3122/22

PROTECTED STRUCTURE: planning permission for development will consist / consists of internal alterations at first floor level, formation of a new attic room and ancillary spaces including new stairs (36 sq.m.) over the existing lower returns at the rear (south) face of the house. Erection of metal lattice screening above the boundary wall facing Bloomfield Avenue.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed development was refused because the attic extension's excessive size and height relative to the original house, along with its negative impact on historic features like the principal eaves line and stairwell bay, would seriously injure the architectural character and special interest of Swanbrook House, a Protected Structure.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The attic extension would visually dominate the rear elevation and obscure the original roof form, resulting in an unacceptable loss of historic fabric through the puncturing of the rear wall for a new staircase.
  • The 25m metal lattice screen constitutes an unnecessary and visually discordant feature that would detract from the setting of the Protected Structure and the character of the streetscape.
  • The overall proposal is unsympathetic to the character and form of the Protected Structure and fails to comply with Policy BHA2, which requires extensions to be sensitively sited and designed.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Policy BHA2 (Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028)Policy CHC2(d) (Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022)Zoning Objective Z1Chapter 11 (Built Heritage and Archaeology)Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2011) - Para 7.7.1 and 7.2.2

Decision Document Summary

The application relates to Swanbrook House, a 19th-century detached villa and Protected Structure in Donnybrook, Dublin 4. The proposal includes a 36 sq.m attic extension with a copper-pitched roof and a 25m long metal lattice screen atop the boundary wall. While the applicant argued the extension used a conservation-led structural solution and matched previous cascading roof interventions, the Inspector concurred with the Planning Authority that the scale was excessive. Key arguments against th...
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