Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommends a grant of permission as the revised proposal successfully overcomes previous refusal reasons by retaining over half of the existing floor area (101.8sqm), thereby aligning with Policy Objective CA6 regarding the reuse of buildings and the avoidance of total demolition of habitable structures. The development is deemed compatible with the 'Objective A' residential zoning and does not significantly impact neighboring amenities.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposal involves the retention and retrofit of a substantial part of the existing structure (approx. 57%), meeting the requirements of Policy Objective CA6 and Section 12.3.9 of the Development Plan which prioritize retrofitting over total demolition.
- The proposed massing, scale, and design are consistent with the established varied character of Merville Avenue and would not cause an unacceptable level of injury to the residential amenities of adjoining properties at No. 17 and No. 21.
- The development is acceptable in terms of traffic safety, drainage, and site development standards, with technical concerns regarding 'buildability' and private property rights noted as civil matters subject to Section 34(13) of the Planning Act.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective AObjective CA6Section 12.3.9Objective PHP18Objective PHP19Objective EI6Section 4.3.1
Decision Document Summary
This report assesses a proposed remodelling and 155.7sqm extension of a detached 1950s dwelling at 19 Merville Avenue, Stillorgan. A previous application (ABP-319835-24) was refused for total demolition; the current scheme significantly modifies the approach by retaining approximately 101.8sqm of the original floor area and footprint. The Inspector argues that this constitutes a legitimate 'deep retrofit' rather than a replacement dwelling, thus aligning with DLR County Development Plan sustaina...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