Core Planning Reasoning
The proposed works constitute development that is not exempted because the cumulative floor area of all extant extensions on the site (exceeding 142 sqm) significantly exceeds the 40 square metre limit set out in Class 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The partial demolition of existing extensions and the construction of a new single-storey rear extension constitutes 'works' and therefore 'development' under Section 3 of the Act.
- In accordance with Supreme Court precedent (Cronin v ABP [2017]), extensions are not considered exempted development under Section 4(1)(h) of the Act as they are governed by specific classes in the Regulations.
- The cumulative floor area of previous and proposed extensions exceeds the 40 sqm threshold permitted under Class 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2, rendering the development non-exempt.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Development Plan 2022-28Section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000Class 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2, Planning and Development Regulations, 2001Class 50 of Part 1 of Schedule 2, Planning and Development Regulations, 2001
Decision Document Summary
The referral concerns whether the removal and reconfiguration of a ground-floor rear conservatory at 'Istria', Dalkey Road, constitutes exempted development. The site is a detached two-storey house that has undergone significant previous extensions. The applicants argued the works were exempt under Section 4(1)(h) of the Act as an improvement that did not materially affect the structure's external appearance. However, the Inspector found that the works involve the construction of a new 39 sqm ex...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