WEB2107/24
PROTECTED STRUCTURE: Planning permission is sought for development comprising: (i) removal of existing window ope to the rear/northeast elevation at lower first floor level; (ii) removal of existing roof over rear return; (iii) extension of lower first floor level to provide 1 no. additional bedroom, atop existing rear return; (iv) new velux rooflight on inside pitch of rear slate roof, to include new plastered and insulated shaft and new open in ceiling at upper first floor level; and, (v) all ancillary works necessary to facilitate the development. The proposed works will result in the subject property becoming a five-bedroom property. This property is a protected structure.
Core Refusal Reason
While the Planning Authority originally refused permission due to the loss of original fabric and perceived injury to the legibility of the Protected Structure, the Inspector recommends granting permission on the basis that the extension is minor in scale, sensitively designed, and does not adversely affect the primary architectural character or the streetscape contribution of the building.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The special character of the Protected Structure is primarily defined by its frontage and contribution to the streetscape, both of which remain unaffected by the proposed rear extension.
- The proposed 10sqm addition is minor in scale and massing, sitting well below the main roof eaves and clearly distinguishing itself as a contemporary addition that does not overwhelm the original structure.
- Significant planning precedent for similar rear returns and additions exists within the immediate terrace (specifically at nos. 14, 16, 22, and 24), meaning the proposal is consistent with the established development pattern.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The application seeks permission for a first-floor extension over an existing rear return at 34 Morehampton Road, a Victorian mid-terrace Protected Structure. Dublin City Council initially refused the development, citing concerns over the loss of historic fabric and damage to the building's architectural legibility. In the appeal, the Inspector notes that the rear of the property is already compromised by an adjacent 1970s apartment block and that the proposed works are not visible from the publ...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