Core Reason for the Refused Part
The attic dormer extension is refused because its excessive scale, width, and prominent glazing are overly dominant and out of character with the unified two-storey residential setting, resulting in a serious injury to the visual and residential amenities of the area through overlooking and loss of privacy.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The ground and first-floor extensions and the front porch are considered acceptable as they represent an appropriate level of residential improvement that does not significantly detract from the area's character.
- The attic dormer is a non-subordinate addition that fails to respect the established building-to-space relationship and creates an undesirable precedent for inconsistent roof-level developments in a coherent suburban estate.
- A split decision is required to facilitate the acceptable extensions while mandating the removal of the dormer and the reinstatement of the original roof profile to protect the 'RS' zoning objectives.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Fingal Development Plan 2017-2023Zoning Objective RSObjective DMS41Chapter 12
Decision Document Summary
This report concerns an appeal at 50 Carlton Court, Swords, involving the retention of a two-storey rear extension, front porch, and a large attic dormer. The site is a modified semi-detached house within a mature estate defined by consistent two-storey forms. The Inspector notes that while the lower-level works are consistent with Fingal's 'RS' zoning, the dormer extension is highly visible from the public domain and adjacent properties. The Inspector argues that the dormer’s 5.3m width and des...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.