3309/21
The development consists of: (a) Alterations and extension to existing attic room to include new access stairs, shower room, dormers at side (east elevation) and at rear (north elevation) and Velux roof-light at front (south elevation). (b) first floor extension at side containing 1 No. Bedroom and home office / study. (c) New Tiled Pitched roof to existing single storey area of house at front (south elevation) which will include a canopy to front entrance door (d) All associated site works and services.
Core Planning Reasoning
The Board directed the removal of conditions 8(b) and 8(c), while upholding condition 8(a), concluding that the side extension setback and rooflight omission were unwarranted, whereas the front canopy was visually dominant and contrary to building line guidelines.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- Condition 8(b) requiring a 300mm side setback is unwarranted given the site context and would result in substandard internal room widths and significant structural construction difficulties.
- The proposed front canopy is overly dominant, projects excessively beyond the established building line, and should be omitted as per Condition 8(a) to protect the visual amenity of the streetscape.
- The front rooflight restricted by Condition 8(c) will have minimal visibility from the public realm and does not represent a threat to the character of the area, justifying its retention.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This Inspector's Report concerns a first-party appeal against three sub-conditions of a planning grant for the alteration and extension of a semi-detached dwelling at 65 Kincora Road, Clontarf. The proposal includes a first-floor side extension, an attic conversion with a rear dormer, and a front canopy. The Planning Authority (Dublin City Council) granted permission but sought to mandate a side setback to prevent 'terracing' effects and the removal of the front canopy and rooflight for visual a...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