D21B/0525

Permission for development at this site

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended a grant of permission as the proposed extension is consistent with the residential zoning objective and, despite its scale, would not seriously injure the residential amenities of adjacent properties or the character of the area due to the significant depth of the existing rear gardens.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The scale and 10.9m length of the extension are considered acceptable and proportionate given the substantial 45-metre depth of the rear garden, which mitigates concerns regarding over-development.
  • Potential impacts regarding overshadowing or loss of daylight to neighboring properties (No. 38 and No. 40) are not deemed significant enough to warrant a refusal of permission.
  • Condition No. 7 of the Planning Authority's decision, requiring a 2-metre-high block wall, is considered unnecessary and should be omitted to address the concerns of both the appellant and the applicant regarding visual impact and buildability.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan 2016-2022Section 8.2.3.4(i) Ground floor rear extensionsSection 8.2.3.4 Additional Accommodation in Existing Built-up AreasZoning Objective A: To protect and/or improve residential amenity

Decision Document Summary

The proposal involves a 61 sq.m single-storey flat-roof extension to the rear of a mid-terrace red-brick dwelling at 39 Lower Churchtown Road, Dublin 14. The site is characterized by a particularly long rear garden (c. 45m) ending at the Luas Green line. Third-party appellants argued that the extension's height and 10.9m length would be overbearing and cause overshadowing. The Inspector found that while the extension is longer than others in the vicinity, the site's unique depth allows for such ...
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