3464/21
Planning permission for the development comprising: (i) alterations to the roof of existing rear annex. The alterations comprise the change from pitched roof to a flat roof and the increase in height to provide for habitable space. 1 no. window to the rear of the annex will also be provided, (ii) the change of use of the grond floor from office use to residential use which will be comprised of 2 no. 1 bedroom apartments, (iii) conversion of the existing vehicular access to a pedestrian access. A new ramped access to the front is proposed to facilitate this, (iv) permission is also sought for all ancillary works necessary to facilitate the development.
Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommends granting permission for the full proposed development (including the two apartments and roof alterations), concluding that the project is consistent with the Z4 zoning objective and does not negatively impact neighboring residential amenities via overshadowing, overlooking, or visual bulk.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed residential use and increased density are appropriate for the 'District Centre' (Z4) zoning and align with national and local policies for sustainable urban infill.
- The alterations to the rear annex roof, changing from a pitched to a flat roof, represent an acceptable design intervention that does not result in significant adverse impacts on sunlight, daylight, or the visual amenity of adjoining properties.
- While the proposal involves a relaxation of communal open space and specific parking requirements, this is justified by the site's highly accessible location, the nature of the refurbishment scheme, and the overall quality of the internal apartment layouts.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The application at 228 Harold's Cross Road, Dublin 6, seeks to convert ground-floor offices into two 1-bedroom apartments and alter the rear annex roof from a pitched to a flat profile to create habitable space. The Planning Authority originally granted permission but imposed a restrictive condition (No. 3) that omitted the roof changes and reduced the development to a single unit, citing concerns over overbearing impact and density. The Inspector, however, argues that the 158mm increase in ridg...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