Core Refusal Reason
The Planning Authority initially refused permission as the two-storey rear extension's scale and massing on a prominent corner site were deemed visually incongruous and overbearing, leading to a serious injury of visual and residential amenities (overlooking) contrary to Section 8.2.3.4 of the Development Plan.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The contemporary design approach is acceptable in principle for this restricted corner site, provided the new structure remains subordinate to the original period dwelling.
- Concerns regarding overbearing impact and overlooking can be effectively mitigated by reducing the extension's floor level to keep its height below the main ridge and by reducing first-floor glazing by 50%.
- With mandated revisions to materials (using stone/brick instead of timber cladding), the proposal would harmonize with the streetscape and comply with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2016-2022Section 8.2Section 8.2.3Section 8.2.3.4Section 8.2.3.4(i)Zoning Objective NC
Decision Document Summary
The application seeks to replace an existing single-storey rear extension at 'Moveen', Ballybrack, with a two-storey, flat-roofed contemporary extension on a constrained corner site. The Planning Authority refused the proposal, citing negative visual impact and injury to residential amenities. The Inspector, however, argues that the existing extension lacks architectural merit and that a replacement is appropriate. While the Inspector agrees that the submitted design lacks subservience and risks...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