Core Reason for the Refused Part
The front boundary treatment, consisting of 1.8m pillars and a 1.7m fence, is visually discordant with the established low-level streetscape of the cul-de-sac, sets an undesirable precedent, and poses a traffic hazard due to reduced visibility at the junction.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The retention of building alterations (flat roof, rear extension increase, and garage door widening) is acceptable as they remain subservient to the host dwelling and do not harm residential amenity.
- The 1.8m high pillars and 1.7m fence are out of character with the prevailing low-lying boundary treatments of Greenville Road and fail to harmonize with the streetscape.
- The height and location of the boundary treatment at the junction with Stradbrook Road creates a potential traffic safety hazard by reducing visibility for vehicles entering the estate.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Section 12.8.7.2 (Boundaries)Section 12.4.8.2 (Visual and Physical Impacts)Section 12.3.7.1 (Extensions to Dwellings)Policy Objective PHP19 (Existing Housing Stock – Adaptation)Policy Objective PHP20 (Protection of Existing Residential Amenity)
Decision Document Summary
The application seeks retention permission for various deviations from a previous planning grant (D21A/0220) at a semi-detached house in Blackrock. The changes include a flat roof on a front extension, a 9sqm increase in the rear extension, a widened garage door, and a high front boundary wall with pillars. The Inspector concludes that while most architectural modifications are acceptable, the front boundary treatment is problematic. Greenville Road is characterized by low-level walls and soft l...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