Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommended a split decision, refusing the rear extension and attic conversion because they are overbearing, visually dominant on a prominent corner site, and cause unacceptable overshadowing and loss of outlook for the adjacent property, while granting the side door relocation and wall reinstatement.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The rear extension is overbearing and dominant when viewed from the neighboring property (No. 3), significantly altering its amenity value through overshadowing and massing.
- The combined visual impact of the two-storey extension and the proposed dormer constitutes an overdevelopment of a prominent corner site that is incongruous with the character of the estate.
- The retention of the relocated side door and the reinstatement of the boundary wall are acceptable as they do not negatively impact residential or visual amenities.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Section 12.3.7.1Section 12.3.7.1(ii)Section 12.3.7.1(iv)Section 12.3.7.5Section 12.8.3.3Table 12.10Zoning Objective 'A'
Decision Document Summary
The proposal involves the retention of a single and two-storey rear extension and a relocated side door, alongside permission for an attic conversion with a rear dormer and roof alterations at 1 Cruagh Close, Stepaside. The site is a prominent end-of-terrace corner house. Although the Planning Authority initially granted permission, the Inspector's assessment following a third-party appeal led to a recommendation for a split decision. The Inspector argued that the rear extension is excessively o...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