2674/21

The proposed development will consist of the extension of the existing dwelling to comprise a kitchen, dining, living area at ground floor (approx. 43m2), and at first floor attic conversion and extension to comprise 2 bedrooms, bathrooms and ancillary accommodation (approx. 50m2). A single storey garden room (approx. 30m2) is also proposed, with uses ancillary to the residential dwelling and not for habitation. Overall, the proposed development proposes a 4-bedroom unit. Permission is also sought for all internal works, landscaping, services, and boundary treatment.

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of scale, design, and use, and would not seriously injure the residential amenities of the area or adjacent properties, provided specific modifications are made to the depth and window dimensions of the first-floor extension.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The principle of ground and first-floor extensions is well-established within the terrace and is compatible with the Z1 residential zoning objective.
  • A reduction in the depth of the first-floor extension to 3 metres and a decrease in the width of the rear master bedroom window to 2.5 metres are required to protect the daylight and privacy of the adjoining property at No. 3.
  • The proposed rear dormer window is acceptable as it is necessary to meet building regulations for floor-to-ceiling height and does not negatively impact the uniform front roofline of the Conservation Area.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Zoning Z116.10.12 Extensions and Alterations to DwellingsAppendix 17Conservation Area associated with the River Dodder

Decision Document Summary

The proposal involves significant alterations to a 19th-century mid-terrace dwelling at 4 Beaver Row, including ground and first-floor extensions and a garden room. The site is situated within a Conservation Area near the River Dodder. The primary planning conflict involves the impact on the residential amenity of No. 3 Beaver Row, which has a confined rear courtyard. While the Planning Authority sought to omit the dormer window and restrict window widths, the Inspector concluded that the dormer...
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