3304/24
PROTECTED STRUCTURE: New two-storey mews dwelling to the rear of a Protected Structure involving the partial removal of the existing boundary wall to Annesley Park / mews lane, demolition of existing single storey outbuilding and all associated site works. The mews dwelling consists of a brick faced masonry structure with metal roof and timber framed windows and will be accessed via a courtyard from a new gateway on to Annesley Park. No works are proposed to the existing Protected Structure or the remainder of the site.
Core Refusal Reason
The proposed development is recommended for refusal due to its poor quality design and layout, specifically regarding the substandard quantum and quality of private open space, inadequate separation distances from the host Protected Structure, and its characterization as an ad-hoc, piecemeal development on a restricted site.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposal provides a poor standard of residential amenity for future occupants due to the significantly substandard quantity and quality of private open space.
- The high site coverage (83.4%) and density represent overdevelopment that is at odds with the established Victorian residential pattern and the sensitive Conservation Area setting.
- In the absence of a coherent masterplan for the substandard laneway, the development is considered premature, piecemeal, and would set an undesirable precedent for similar restricted sites.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The application seeks permission for a two-storey, one-bedroom mews dwelling (61 sqm) to the rear of No. 31 Ormond Road South, a Protected Structure in Ranelagh. The site is a restricted 58 sqm plot located at the corner junction of Annesley Park and an unnamed, substandard service lane. The Inspector notes that while the appellant's amended design successfully addresses some heritage concerns—specifically the retention and repair of historic limestone boundary walls—the proposal fails on core r...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