Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommended the omission of Condition 2(b), concluding that the proposed 200mm increase of the dormer above the existing ridge line was necessary for practical storage use and would not significantly impact the visual amenity of the streetscape or the character of the parent dwelling.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The appeal was appropriately confined to the assessment of Condition No. 2(b) under the provisions of Section 139 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.
- The raising of the flat roof dormer by 200mm above the ridge line does not constitute a significant negative visual distraction when viewed in the context of adjoining buildings and similar developments in the area.
- The proposed development is consistent with the Z1 zoning objective to protect and improve residential amenities and aligns with the established pattern of development in Walkinstown.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective Z1Section 16.10.12 Extensions and Alterations to DwellingsAppendix 17 - Roof Extensions
Decision Document Summary
This First Party appeal relates to an attic conversion at No. 3 Hughes Road East, Walkinstown. The development involves modifying the roof from a hipped to a gable-ended structure and installing a rear flat-roof dormer. Dublin City Council granted permission but included Condition 2(b), which required the dormer not to exceed the existing ridge line. The applicant appealed, stating the height increase (200mm) is vital for functional head height and practical storage. The Inspector's assessment f...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