Core Refusal Reason
While the Planning Authority refused permission due to the dormer's excessive scale and bulk, the Inspector recommends a grant of permission, concluding that the proposed modifications—specifically matching cladding, reduced capping height, and opaque glazing—sufficiently mitigate the visual impact and protect residential amenity.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The forward projection of the side extension by 0.38m is modest in dimensions and has minimal visual impact on the streetscape.
- The enlarged rear dormer, though larger than previously permitted, is consistent with the 2022-2028 CDP once finished in matching cladding to blend with the roof material.
- Overlooking concerns for adjacent properties are effectively addressed by the applicant's proposal to replace clear glazing with opaque glass in the northernmost window pane.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Section 8.2.3.4 (2016 CDP)Section 8.2.3.4(i) (2016 CDP)Section 12.3.7.1 (2022 CDP)Section 12.3.7.1(i) (2022 CDP)Section 12.3.7.1(iv) (2022 CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The application seeks retention of alterations to a previously approved development at 9 Braemor Drive, Churchtown, involving a 0.38m forward shift of a side extension and a 1.2m wider rear dormer. The site is an end-of-terrace dwelling in a uniform residential cul-de-sac. The Planning Authority initially refused retention, citing concerns that the dormer was visually obtrusive and out of character. However, the Inspector notes that the dormer is not visible from the main street and that the pro...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