3052/21
PERMISSION & RETENTION: Retention permission is sought for: A) The ground floor lean-to roof over the front entrance of the existing semi-detached house, B) The gym and store structure located to the rear of the site with associated windows, external doors and monopitch roof, C) The pedestrian side gate providing access to Gracefield Court, and D) Part of the circa 2.4m high eastern boundary wall. Permission is sought for: A) A new side extension and removal of the chimney to the first floor of the existing house, B) Conversion of the attic with a rear dormer window and two rooflights to the side and front of the house respectively, C) Replacement of the southern boundary wall with a new 2.3m high wall with one pedestrian gate to access the back lane and D) Rising of part of the eastern boundary wall to match the rest of the wall subject to retention.
Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommended omitting the condition to reduce the boundary wall height as it is visually acceptable and consistent with the area, but maintained the requirement to remove the pedestrian side gate because the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient legal interest or consent to access the adjoining land.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The 2.4m height of the eastern boundary wall and 2.3m southern wall are acceptable and do not negatively impact the streetscape or neighboring properties.
- Retention permission for the pedestrian side gate cannot be granted as the applicant has not demonstrated legal interest or provided a letter of consent for access onto third-party land (Gracefield Court).
- Condition 7(b) regarding wall height should be omitted, while Condition 7(c) should be amended to ensure the gate is removed and the wall is 'made good' to match the existing structure.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This report concerns a first-party appeal against conditions 7(b) and 7(c) imposed by Dublin City Council regarding a semi-detached house at 49 Gracefield Road, Artane. The development involves the retention of various structures including a gym/store and boundary walls, alongside permission for a new extension and attic conversion. The Planning Authority sought to limit all boundary walls to 2m and remove a pedestrian side gate. The Inspector concluded that the wall height (up to 2.4m) is accep...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