Core Refusal Reason
The proposed two-storey extension was refused due to its excessive scale and proximity to site boundaries, which would result in an undue overbearing impact on No. 86 New Haven Bay and a loss of privacy for residential properties to the south (specifically No. 35 Trimleston) due to insufficient window separation distances.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The height and depth of the extension along the eastern boundary would eliminate an essential 2m building line setback, creating an unacceptable overbearing impact on the private amenity space of No. 86 New Haven Bay.
- The proposed habitable room window on the rear elevation is located only 2.3m from the southern boundary and 13m from opposing windows, failing to meet the minimum 16m separation distance required by national guidance to prevent overlooking.
- Proposed mitigation measures, such as obscured glazing, are considered inappropriate for a sole bedroom window as they would negatively impact the internal amenity and outlook for the occupants.
Cited Policies (CDP)
RS Residential Zoning ObjectiveSection 3.5.13.1 (Extensions and Renovations)Policy SPQHP41 (Residential Extensions)Objective SPQHO45 (Domestic Extensions)Section 14.10.2.2 (Side Extensions)Objective DMSO23 (Separation distances)SPPR 1 & SPPR 2 of the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines 2024
Decision Document Summary
This report pertains to a first-party appeal for a two-storey extension to a detached dwelling at 87 New Haven Bay, Balbriggan. The site is situated in a unique courtyard-style residential layout where side gardens serve as the primary private amenity space. The proposal sought to extend the dwelling by approximately 2m to the eastern boundary to enlarge first-floor bedrooms and provide ground-floor storage. While the Inspector noted that the design was sympathetic to the original house and that...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.