Core Refusal Reason
The Planning Authority initially refused permission due to the development's perceived bulk and massing; however, the Inspector recommended a grant of permission, concluding that the works are consistent with local precedents, maintain architectural balance with the adjoining property, and do not significantly harm residential amenity.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The modified roof profile is consistent with established precedents in the immediate vicinity, specifically at the adjacent semi-detached property (No. 53), and provides a degree of symmetry to the pair of houses.
- The 6-metre-wide rear dormer does not impact residential amenities in terms of overshadowing or undue overlooking within the suburban context.
- The visual impact of the dormer's finish can be mitigated by a condition requiring the external materials to match the existing roof colour, rather than the current white dash finish.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029Objective RS (Residential Zoning)Section 14.10.2.5 (Roof Alterations including Attic Conversions and Dormer Extensions)Section 3.5.13.1 (Residential Extensions)Objective SPQH045Policy SPQHP41
Decision Document Summary
This Inspector's Report relates to a first-party appeal against the refusal of retention permission for roof modifications (changing from hipped to gable end) and a large rear box dormer at 54 Castlefield Court, Clonsilla. Fingal County Council originally refused the application, citing that the bulk and massing were overbearing and contravened the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. The Inspector's assessment focused on visual and residential amenity, noting that the adjoining property at No. 53...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.