Core Refusal Reason
The proposed development would adversely impact the residential amenity of adjacent properties through overlooking and overbearing appearance, while representing an unsatisfactory deviation from the established building line and architectural character of the area.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The scale, massing, and position of the proposed dwelling behind the established building line would result in a dominant and overbearing impact on the residents of both No. 64 and No. 66 Beech Park Road.
- The proposal, including the revised flat-roof scheme, fails to respect the architectural style and staggered pattern of development in the surrounding area, making it visually obtrusive on the streetscape.
- The development introduces unacceptable intrusions on privacy through both direct and indirect overlooking from first-floor windows and terraces, contrary to the protection of existing residential amenities.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Objective A (Zoning)Section 12.3.7.5 (Corner/ Side Garden Sites)Policy Objective PHP20 (Protection of Existing Residential Amenity)Section 4.3.1.3Policy Objective PHP18 (Residential Density)Chapter 4 (Neighbourhood, People, Homes and Places)Chapter 12 (Development Management Standards)Section 12.3.1 (Quality Design)Section 12.3.3 (Qualitative Standards for All Residential Development)Section 12.3.4 (Residential Development - General Requirements)Section 12.3.7 (Additional Accommodation in Existing Built-Up Areas)Section 12.3.7.7 (Infill)
Decision Document Summary
The proposal involves the demolition of an existing rear garage at 'Melmount', 64 Beech Park Road, Foxrock, and the construction of a two-storey, 2-bedroom detached house. The site is located in an established residential area characterized by a defined building line and rising topography. The Planning Authority originally refused permission due to concerns over residential amenity and building line deviation. On appeal, the applicant submitted a revised design with a flat roof to reduce height....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