WEB1841/21
PERMISSION & RETENTION: Planning permission & retention permission for development 304 Swords Road, Santry, Dublin 9. The development will consist of the construction of a two storey extension to the side of the existing dwelling to include; boot room, home gym and utility to ground floor, two bedrooms a wc and hotpress to first floor, an entrance porch to the front and associated site works & consists of the retention of an existing two storey extension to the rear of the dwelling including Kitchen to ground floor and Bedroom, Wardrobe and En-suite to first floor.
Core Planning Reasoning
The proposed side and rear extensions are visually incongruous and obtrusive, failing to be subordinate to the host dwelling and causing serious injury to the residential and visual amenities of the area, contrary to the policies and objectives of the Dublin City Development Plan.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The extensions are not subordinate in scale or design to the host dwelling and fail to respect the established streetscape character of matching semi-detached pairs.
- The development results in significant adverse impacts on the adjoining property (No. 306) through visual overbearance, overlooking, and unmitigated overshadowing.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient legal interest regarding boundary encroachments and provided inadequate technical documentation regarding drainage and daylight analysis.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The proposal involves the construction of a two-storey side extension and porch, alongside the retention of a partially built two-storey rear extension at No. 304 Swords Road, Santry. Despite a grant of permission by Dublin City Council, the Inspector recommends refusal following a third-party appeal. The site context involves a suburban setting opposite the Omni Park Shopping Centre. The Inspector's primary arguments focus on the lack of subordination, as the extensions project above the main e...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