SD24B/0209W

The development will consist of alterations to unbuilt elements of a previously permitted and a partially built extension (reg. ref: SD21B/0411) to include; (i) an enlarged first floor extension with flat roof and roof lights (in lieu of permitted) to the rear of the existing dwelling; (ii) associated alterations to the side and rear elevations; (iii) the addition of a single storey flat roof porch to the front; (iv) the addition of a single storey pitched roof garage to the side & all ancillary works to facilitate the development.

Split decision

Core Reason for the Refused Part

The proposed alterations were refused due to the first-floor extension's overbearing impact on the neighboring property and the porch's excessive height, which would negatively affect the character of the streetscape and residential amenity.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The first-floor rear extension lacks a minimum 1m setback from the shared boundary with No. 9 Wainsfort Crescent, leading to unacceptable overbearing and overshadowing impacts on the adjacent property.
  • The proposed porch height breaches the existing eaves line by approximately 0.9m, resulting in a visual impact that is inconsistent with the established character of the dwelling and the surrounding streetscape.
  • The overall scale, massing, and design of the proposed elements fail to comply with the 'RES' zoning objective to protect residential amenity and do not adhere to the Council's House Extension Design Guide.

Cited Policies (CDP)

RES land-use zoning objectiveSouth Dublin County Council House Extension Design Guide 2010South Dublin County Development Plan 2022-2028

Decision Document Summary

The proposal sought alterations to unbuilt elements of a previously permitted extension at 11 Wainsfort Crescent, Terenure, specifically focusing on an enlarged first-floor rear extension and a flat-roof porch. The Planning Authority issued a split decision, refusing these elements because the first-floor extension was too close to the boundary of No. 9, threatening the neighbor's light and amenity, and the porch design was deemed visually intrusive due to its height relative to the existing roo...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.