4012/21
PROTECTED STRUCTURE: The development will consist of the demolition of a section of the rear return walls at garden level and ground floor level, and the construction of a part single storey, part two storey extension to the rear, internal alterations, the reconfiguration of two bathrooms and the installation of a utility room in the existing house, and associated site works.
Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommended the removal of Condition 3(a), which sought to omit the first-floor extension, concluding that the proposed development is sympathetic to the Protected Structure, appropriately scaled, and does not negatively impact the residential amenities of adjacent properties.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed first-floor extension is sensitively designed with adequate setbacks, ensuring it remains subservient to the main Protected Structure and preserves its architectural integrity.
- The development will not result in significant injury to the residential amenities of neighboring properties (No. 19 and No. 21 Oakley Road) in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, or overbearing impacts.
- The Inspector recommends the Board direct the Planning Authority to remove Condition 3(a) and replace it with a condition requiring obscure glazing for the proposed ensuite window to the south.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This report pertains to a first-party appeal against a specific condition requiring the omission of a first-floor extension at 20 Oakley Road, Ranelagh, which is a Protected Structure. The overall development includes internal alterations and a part single-storey, part two-storey rear extension. While the Planning Authority initially granted permission, it sought to remove the upper floor of the extension to protect the character of the historic structure. The Inspector's assessment concluded th...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