Core Planning Reasoning
The proposed development, as modified by amended plans submitted during the appeal, is considered consistent with the residential zoning objective and would not seriously injure the residential or visual amenities of the area.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The principle of the development is acceptable as it aligns with the Z1 zoning objective to protect and improve residential amenities in a mature suburb.
- The revised design for the ground floor extension, featuring a reduced height and a 600mm setback from the northern boundary, sufficiently addresses concerns regarding overshadowing and overbearing impacts on the adjacent property.
- The proposed dormer windows are appropriate in scale and character for the area, provided that the side-facing dormer is fitted with opaque glazing to prevent overlooking of neighboring properties to the south.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective Z1Section 16.10.12 (Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings)Appendix 17 (Guidelines for Residential Extensions)Appendix 17.11
Decision Document Summary
This Inspector's Report examines a first-party appeal regarding a proposed development at 38 Seafield Avenue, Clontarf, involving a single-storey rear extension, side and rear dormer windows, and a garage conversion. The primary issues revolved around the Planning Authority's conditions (11a and 11b) which sought to significantly alter the layout and scale of the extension and dormer to protect the amenities of neighboring house no. 40. During the appeal, the applicant submitted revised drawings...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