WEB1265/24
The development consists of (1) Demolition of an existing lean-to single storey extension to the front and side, (2) Demolition of two lean-to garden sheds to the rear and side, (3) Construction of a single storey front extension to existing house to provide additional living accommodation at ground floor (4) Construction of a new pitched roof two storey end of terrace house and all associated site works (5) New vehicular access and pedestrian access points from Brandon Road, one additional car parking space and amendments to boundary fence for provision of private residential open space, (6) Renovation and alterations to the existing house including roof structure and all associated site works.
Core Refusal Reason
The proposed development would conjoin two separate terraces on a prominent corner site, masking their distinction and injuring the character of the area, while also constituting overdevelopment due to inadequate and poor-quality private open space for both the existing and proposed dwellings.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The conjoining of separate terraces on a prominent corner plot would negatively impact visual amenity and the established character of the Drimnagh area by removing a significant visual break.
- The proposal represents overdevelopment of a restricted site, providing insufficient private amenity space (only 7sq.m to the rear of the new dwelling) which would be largely overshadowed and fails to meet SPPR2 standards.
- While the appellant's revised drawings successfully addressed traffic safety concerns by providing a 5m parking depth, this modification further reduced the already substandard usable open space, reinforcing the unsuitability of the site for an additional dwelling.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The application at 162 Brandon Road, Drimnagh, proposed the demolition of a side extension and the construction of a new two-storey, two-bedroom end-of-terrace dwelling in the side garden. The site is located within a Z1 residential zone. Dublin City Council initially refused permission due to inadequate private open space and insufficient front garden depth for parking. On appeal, the applicant submitted revised plans increasing the front setback to 420mm to accommodate 5m parking bays. While t...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