D25A/0466/WEB

Alterations to previously granted planning application reg/ref: D24A/0932/WEB t

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The Planning Authority initially refused permission as the dormer's design, bulk, and massing were deemed visually obtrusive, not subordinate to the roof, and contrary to Section 12.3.7.1(iv) of the Development Plan. However, the Inspector ultimately recommended granting permission based on amended plans that reduced the scale and increased setbacks.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The amended plans submitted at the appeal stage sufficiently mitigate the Planning Authority's concerns by reducing the dormer's height below the ridge line and increasing its setback from the eaves and side boundaries.
  • The modified proposal is consistent with the scale and character of existing dormer developments in the immediate vicinity and complies with the qualitative standards of the County Development Plan regarding roof alterations.
  • Shadow analysis and overlooking assessments indicate that the proposed development will not result in significant adverse impacts on the residential amenities or daylight access of neighboring properties.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Section 12.3.7.1 (iv)Objective APolicy Objective CA7Section 4.3.1.2 Policy Objective PHP19Section 4.3.1.3 Policy Objective PHP20Section 12.2.1Section 12.3.1

Decision Document Summary

This report evaluates a First Party appeal against the refusal of planning permission for an attic dormer at 68 Thornhill Road, Mount Merrion. The Planning Authority originally refused the application, arguing the dormer presented as a visually obtrusive third-storey extension rather than a subordinate roof addition. In response to the appeal, the applicants submitted amended plans reducing the dormer's width from 6m to 5.8m, lowering the height to 8.35m (below the ridge), and increasing the set...
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