Core Reason for the Refused Part
The applicant did not appeal the initial refusal of the rear access ladder and explicitly stated during the appeal process that retention permission for this element was no longer being pursued.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The planning authority's initial decision to refuse retention for the rear access ladder was not appealed by the applicant.
- The applicant formally stated in their response to third-party appeals that the retention of the subject ladder was not being pursued.
- The Commission upheld the refusal to maintain consistency with the applicant's stated position, despite the Inspector's assessment that the ladder did not negatively impact architectural heritage or residential amenity.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This application sought retention permission for several amendments to a permitted development at 14A/15A Monkstown Crescent, located within an Architectural Conservation Area. The proposal included a reduced curved roof, a higher rear elevation wall, a window-to-door conversion, and a rear access ladder for a green roof. While the structural amendments were granted permission, the rear access ladder was refused. This refusal was based on procedural grounds, as the applicant failed to appeal the...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