WEB1945/21

The development consists of demolition of existing single storey extension to the rear & for the construction of a single storey ground floor extension & for the conversion of the existing attic to an office/store area & for a dormer to side and rear of existing house & for all associated site works.

Split decision

Core Reason for the Refused Part

The proposed side and rear dormers were refused due to their excessive scale, bulk, and position, which failed to be visually subordinate to the roof slope, thereby causing serious injury to the visual amenity and character of the existing dwelling and the uniform streetscape.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The demolition and replacement of the single-storey rear extension is acceptable as it improves residential amenity without compromising the character of the terrace or causing overshadowing.
  • The proposed side and rear dormers lack subordination to the original roof structure and would effectively double the ridge height, creating a significant and incongruous change to a highly uniform terrace group.
  • The dormer elements would set an undesirable precedent for over-scaled roof extensions that would further erode the architectural integrity of the mature residential setting.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022Appendix 17.11 (Roof Extensions)Section 16.2.2.3 (Alterations and Extensions)Section 16.10.12 (Extension and Alterations to Dwellings)Zoning Objective Z1 (Sustainable Residential Neighbourhoods)

Decision Document Summary

The proposal at No. 52 Dollymount Park, a 1930s end-of-terrace house, sought to replace an existing rear extension and convert the attic using side and rear dormer windows. The site is located in a mature cul-de-sac characterized by uniform residential terraces. The Inspector recommended a split decision: granting the ground-floor extension but upholding the refusal of the attic/dormer components. The Inspector's key argument centered on the lack of visual subordination required by Appendix 17.1...
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