Core Refusal Reason
The Inspector recommended granting retention permission, overturning the Planning Authority's refusal, on the basis that the development complies with local design guidance, is not dominant, and does not injure the visual or residential amenity of the area.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The dormer window complies with Appendix 18 and Table 18.1 of the City Plan as it is set back from the eaves, does not breach the ridge line, and allows a large portion of the original roof profile to remain visible.
- The change to a lighter multi-toned buff/sand coloured brick is acceptable because the tone and quality do not clash with surrounding dwellings, particularly given the existing lack of uniformity in the wider housing estate.
- The development does not result in significant new overlooking opportunities as the dormer serves a stairwell only, and it is not considered to be visually incongruous with the existing dwelling or its surroundings.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028Zoning Objective Z1Policy QHSN6Appendix 18 (Sections 4.0 and 5.0)Table 18.1
Decision Document Summary
This report assesses a first-party appeal against Dublin City Council's decision to refuse retention permission for a side dormer roof and a change of front brick façade at 7 Claremont Park, Sandymount. The Planning Authority had refused permission citing visual incongruity and poor documentation. The Inspector found that while initial drawings were poor, the as-built drawings submitted with the appeal demonstrated that the dormer is sympathetic to the original roof form and respects the scale 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