Core Refusal Reason
The Planning Authority refused permission stating the development's design, bulk, and scale would constitute overdevelopment of the site, appear visually incongruous and overbearing within the streetscape, and would depreciate the value of property in the vicinity, contrary to Section 8.2.3.4 of the County Development Plan.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The overall design of the proposed development is an acceptable contemporary response that achieves a suitable balance between modern living requirements and the established character of the area.
- The development maintains adequate separation distances (3.2m from No. 12) and utilizes a recessed positioning that prevents it from appearing visually dominant or overbearing from the public road.
- The proposal will not result in significant detrimental impacts on the residential amenity of neighboring properties in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, or loss of daylight.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Section 8.2.3.4 (i) Extensions to DwellingsSection 8.2.3.4 (xiv) Demolition and Replacement DwellingsSection 8.2.3.1 Quality Residential DesignSection 8.2.3.5 Residential Development – General RequirementsSection 8.2.4.9 Vehicular Entrances and Hardstanding AreasLand Use Zoning Objective 'A': To protect and-or improve residential amenity
Decision Document Summary
The proposal involves the significant extension and remodification of a semi-detached dwelling at No. 11 Ballinclea Heights, Killiney. Key elements include single-storey front, side, and rear extensions, and raising the ridge height from 5.55m to 6.94m to accommodate a first-floor attic conversion with a front balcony. The site is located in a mature cul-de-sac with a mix of single and two-storey dwellings. While the Planning Authority refused permission due to concerns over 'overdevelopment' an...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