Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommended amending Condition No. 2 to allow for a smaller reduction in dormer width than originally required by the Planning Authority, concluding that a 200mm height reduction and a 250mm width reduction ensure the structure remains subordinate and symmetrical without harming residential amenity.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The 200mm height reduction from the ridgeline is appropriate to ensure the dormer remains subordinate to the existing dwelling in accordance with Development Plan guidance.
- The Planning Authority's requirement for a 1m width reduction was a late handwritten amendment lacking clear justification or consistency with local precedents.
- A 250mm width reduction is sufficient to provide a 1m set-back from the adjoining property, allowing the dormer to read symmetrically and centrally within the roofspace without causing undue overlooking.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective APolicy Objective PHP19Section 12.3.7.1 (iv) (Alterations at Roof/Attic Level)
Decision Document Summary
This first-party appeal under Section 139 relates specifically to Condition No. 2 of a permission granted for an attic conversion and rear dormer at a semi-detached residence in Dundrum. The condition required the dormer height to be lowered by 200mm and its width reduced by 1m. The Inspector found that while the height reduction was necessary for subordinance to the ridgeline, the 1m width reduction was unjustified and lacked a clear planning rationale. By recommending a 250mm width reduction i...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