3713/21
The development will consist of the demolition of the garage and single storey extension to the side of the existing two storey semi-detached dwelling. The construction of a new two storey extension to the side and front, with hipped roofs and roof light to the side. Part two storey, part single storey extension to the rear with roof lights. Alterations to the front entrance door and new canopy over. Roof lights to the rear of the existing main roof. Full renovation and internal alterations of the existing house. Enlargement of the vehicular entrance off Sandymount Castle Road and new pillar to match existing. Associated site works.
Core Planning Reasoning
The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the residential zoning objective (Z1) and would not seriously injure the residential amenities of the property in the vicinity or the character of the area, provided that the existing vehicular entrance width is retained to preserve on-street parking.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The two-storey rear extension is sensitively designed with a reduced ridge height (7.1m) and central positioning to mitigate overshadowing and overbearing impacts on the adjoining property at No. 11.
- Proposed overlooking from the first-floor rear window is not considered to result in a significant loss of privacy as it does not increase overlooking beyond what is already possible from existing windows.
- The request to widen the vehicular entrance from 3m to 3.5m is rejected to prevent the loss of public on-street parking and maintain the visual uniformity of the streetscape.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This Inspector's Report assesses a proposal at 9 Sandymount Castle Road for the demolition of a garage and the construction of a c.99 sqm side and rear extension. The site is a semi-detached dwelling within an area zoned for sustainable residential neighborhoods (Z1). A third-party appeal from the neighbor at No. 11 raised concerns regarding overshadowing of their conservatory, loss of privacy, and the lack of precedent for two-storey rear extensions. The Inspector found that precedent does exis...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