Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommended the modification of Condition 3(a) to allow a maximum height of 3.6 metres (rather than the 3.2 metres required by the Planning Authority) to balance the applicant's need for light penetration with the protection of neighbouring residential amenities from overbearing impacts.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The original proposed height of 4.6 metres for the rear extension was considered excessive and overbearing within the context of the tight historic urban grain.
- A compromise height of 3.6 metres for the double-height element is appropriate to maintain design integrity and light access while mitigating visual injury to adjoining properties.
- Condition 3(b) regarding the prohibition of oversailing must be retained as the appellant failed to demonstrate sufficient legal interest or provide letters of consent from adjoining owners.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective Z1Section 16.10.12Appendix 17Section 16.2.2.3
Decision Document Summary
This Inspector's Report concerns a First-Party appeal under Section 139 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 against Condition No. 3 of a permission granted for a rear extension at No. 15 Carlingford Parade, Dublin 2. The site is a small period dwelling in a dense urban setting. The Planning Authority had conditioned a height reduction to 3.2m and a total ban on oversailing. The Inspector found that while the applicant's proposed 4.6m height was too dominant and lacked sub-ordination, the Co...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