WEB2212/24

A ground floor flat roof extension to the rear, two-storey extension at first floor level to the side of the existing two storey semi-detached house complete with a new hipped roof which is an extension of the existing hipped roof, a new dormer rooflight along the rear of the main roof and a new brick treatment to the ground floor level of the front elevation of the side extension.

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended granting permission because the proposed development is consistent with the Z1 zoning objective, complies with the design principles for residential extensions in the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028, and will not negatively impact the visual character of the area or the residential amenities of neighbouring properties.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The 200mm setback of the first-floor extension from the main building line adequately addresses development plan requirements to avoid a terracing effect in a mature streetscape.
  • While the separation distance from the boundary (177mm) is narrow, it is consistent with the established pattern of development in the Gilford area and is considered an acceptable design response.
  • The hipped roof profile of the rear dormer and the use of brick for side elevations sufficiently mitigate concerns regarding scale, overlooking, and future maintenance requirements.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Zoning Z1: Sustainable Residential NeighbourhoodsAppendix 18: Ancillary Residential AccommodationSection 1.1: General Design PrinciplesSection 1.3: Extensions to the SideSection 1.4: Privacy and AmenitySection 1.6: Daylight and SunlightSection 1.7: Appearance and MaterialsSection 4.0: Alterations at Roof Level / Attics / Dormers / additional FloorsSection 5.0: Attic Conversions / Dormer WindowsSection 17.7Section 17.8

Decision Document Summary

This Inspector's Report relates to a proposal for a first-floor side extension and a zinc-clad rear box dormer at a 1930s semi-detached house in Sandymount, Dublin 4. The Planning Authority originally granted permission, but this was appealed by a third party (No. 34 Gilford Park) primarily due to concerns over insufficient separation distances for construction access and maintenance. The Inspector noted that the application is a refined version of a previously granted scheme (ABP-318840-24) and...
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