WEB1601/25

Planning permission for the following works (a) demolition of garage, (b) construction of two-storey side extension, including modification of existing single-storey side extension, (c) construction of rear attic dormer and attic conversion, (d) forming new pedestrian entrance in the side boundary wall onto Larkfield Gardens, (e) modifications to existing rear lean-to extension, (f) associated site works.

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended granting permission subject to amended conditions, primarily ensuring the extension is fully integrated with the main dwelling to prevent unauthorized subdivision while permitting contemporary materials for the attic dormer.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • Condition 3(a) should be amended to require the omission of a separate staircase, ensuring the extension is accessed via the main first-floor level to prevent the creation of a separate dwelling unit.
  • Condition 7 should be removed as the proposed metal-clad (standing seam) dormer is a high-quality contemporary design feature that harmonizes with the area and does not negatively impact visual amenities.
  • The overall development, as modified by conditions, is consistent with the Z1 zoning objective and the proper planning and sustainable development of the Kimmage area.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Dublin City Development Plan 2022–2028Zoning Objective Z1Section 15.11Appendix 18 (Ancillary residential accommodation)Appendix 18, Section 1.1Appendix 18, Section 1.2Appendix 18, Section 1.3Appendix 18, Section 1.7Appendix 18, Section 5 (Attic Conversions / Dormer Windows)Appendix 18, Section 6Appendix 18, Section 7.0

Decision Document Summary

This Inspector's Report evaluates a first-party appeal regarding conditions attached to a grant of permission for a development at 86 Larkfield Gardens, Dublin. The project involves the demolition of a garage and the construction of a two-storey side extension, attic conversion with a rear dormer, and a new pedestrian entrance. The primary contention revolved around the Planning Authority's concerns that the layout facilitated a separate, autonomous dwelling unit, leading to conditions mandating...
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