Core Reason for the Refused Part
The Inspector recommended a grant of permission for the entire development, overturning the Planning Authority's partial refusal, on the basis that the structures are subordinate in scale to the main dwelling, are not visually obtrusive due to site topography and screening, and provide for uses ancillary to the main house.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The extended treatment room/home office is subordinate to the main dwelling (which exceeds 500sqm) and is located at a lower level with significant screening, meaning it does not detract from the visual amenities or character of the high-amenity area.
- Development Plan Policy H23 Objective 1 is not applicable to the proposal as the subject building is neither a rural house nor a house extension, but an ancillary garden structure.
- The provision of sanitary facilities within the building was established by a prior Board decision (ABP-305380-19) and the current layout is acceptable as it remains ancillary to the primary residence.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Policy H10Policy H14H14 Objective 1Policy H23H23 Objective 1Section 6.7.4Section 6.8.2Section 6.9Section 6.9.7Section 12.6.8Built Form Principle (BFP) 6SDCC House Extension Design Guide 2025
Decision Document Summary
The proposal seeks retention permission for an extension to a previously permitted treatment room/home office building (increasing its size to 115.5sqm), a pergola, a garden room, and a Barna shed at a 3.6ha site in Rathfarnham, zoned 'High Amenity Dublin Mountains'. South Dublin County Council issued a split decision, granting the garden room and shed but refusing the office extension and pergola due to concerns over scale, internal sanitary facilities, and visual impact on the hillside. The In...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.