Core Planning Reasoning
The primary recommendation is to remove Condition 2 of the Planning Authority's decision, as the 2-metre reduction in length of the proposed first-floor extension is not justified on residential or visual amenity grounds and would unnecessarily compromise the internal functionality of the development.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed first-floor extension would not result in significant overbearing or overshadowing impacts on the adjoining property, 61B Sweetmount Avenue, given its modest protrusion and the 1-metre separation from the shared boundary.
- The extension will not be visually dominant or have a negative impact on the streetscape because it is situated mid-block and is largely concealed by existing high boundary walls, hedges, and outbuildings.
- Enforcing a 2-metre reduction would severely impair the usability and functionality of the proposed new bedroom, undermining the core purpose of the application for a growing family.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Objective APolicy Objective CA7Section 4.3.1.2Section 12.3.7.1(ii)
Decision Document Summary
This report concerns a first-party appeal against Condition 2 of a planning grant for a first-floor side and rear extension at 61 Sweetmount Avenue, Dundrum. The condition required a 2-metre reduction in the extension's length to mitigate perceived overbearing impacts on No. 61B. The Inspector evaluated the site context, noting that the dwelling is mid-block and shielded by existing vegetation and structures, making the extension less visible from the street than suggested by the Planning Author...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