4097/21
RETENTION: Retention Planning Permission is sought for amendments to previously approved Planning Permission WEB3504/11, comprising alterations and extensions to the existing mid-terraced single-storey house at 18 Niall Street, Dublin 7, D07 V6Y5. Amendments comprise minor modifications to the internal layouts, modifications to the fenestration of the single-storey rear extension and additional Velux roof lights on the front and rear roofs.
Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommended the omission of Condition No. 3, concluding that the retention of the front rooflight does not negatively impact the visual amenities or character of the residential conservation area and significantly improves the residential amenity of the dwelling.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The front rooflight is flush with the roof profile and sympathetic in color to the slates, ensuring it is not visibly obtrusive in the streetscape of the conservation area.
- The development serves to improve the standard of living in an older, modest dwelling by providing necessary internal daylight, which aligns with general planning policy objectives.
- The retained development is not contrary to development plan policy concerning residential conservation areas and is in accordance with proper planning and sustainable development.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This report pertains to a first-party appeal against Condition No. 3 of Dublin City Council's grant of retention permission for alterations at 18 Niall Street, Dublin 7. The site is a mid-terrace, single-storey cottage located within a Z2 Residential Conservation Area. The Planning Authority sought the removal of a front rooflight, citing concerns regarding streetscape impact and a lack of local precedent. The Inspector's assessment found that the rooflight is discreetly positioned near the roof...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