Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommends granting permission by omitting Condition 2(a) to allow the full extension depth, as it provides better internal amenity without significant adverse impact on neighbors, while retaining Condition 2(b) to preserve the architectural uniformity of the front elevation.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- Condition 2(a) should be omitted because the original extension design preserves the link between internal rooms and external space, and its truncation would render the proposed home office and WC unviable.
- Condition 2(b) should be retained as the proposed modification to the front fenestration would detract from the established architectural character and uniformity of the pair of semi-detached houses.
- The residual private open space, while below standard, is acceptable given the inner suburban infill location and the qualitative improvement to the internal living accommodation.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Zoning Objective Z1Chapter 15 Section 15.11Section 5.11.3 (Private Open Space)Appendix 18 (Ancillary Residential Accommodation)Section 1 (Residential Extensions)Section 1.1 (General Design Principles)Section 1.2 (Rear Extensions)
Decision Document Summary
The proposal at 1 Hazel Park, Dublin 6W, involves a single-storey rear extension (12sqm), a new side pedestrian gate, and the enlargement of a front living room window. The site contains a modest late-20th-century semi-detached house on a restricted 100sqm plot. Dublin City Council originally granted permission but included conditions to truncate the extension and omit the front window changes. The Inspector argued that the full-length extension is spatially preferable and that strict adherence ...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