3149/24

Permission to include demolition of rear walls on ground floor and part rear on first floor. Demolition of internal walls to allow new layout on both floors. Permission required for the erection of a new single storey flat roof extension to the rear with roof light over and a two storey extension with pitched roof over existing single storey rear extension. Roof lights on the sides of two storey extension section. Changes to glazing on the rear elevation. Maintain connection to existing drainage and surface water and all ancillary site works.

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended granting permission but maintaining the restrictive conditions (2a and 2b) to ensure the first-floor extension is subservient to the main house and does not negatively impact neighboring residential amenities through overbearing appearance.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The first-floor extension depth of 4.3 metres exceeds 50% of the dwelling's depth and is not sufficiently subservient; therefore, the 3.5-metre restriction in Condition 2a is reasonable.
  • A pitched roof on the first-floor extension in this mid-terrace context would be more overbearing than a flat roof, justifying the retention of Condition 2b.
  • The proposed development, when modified by the Planning Authority's conditions, accords with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and the Z1 zoning objective.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Zoning Objective Z1Chapter 15 (Development Standards)Appendix 18 (Ancillary Residential Accommodation)Section 1.0 Residential ExtensionsSection 1.2 Extensions to RearSection 1.6 Daylight and SunlightAppendix 17 Section 1.6

Decision Document Summary

The application relates to 121 New Ireland Road, a mid-terrace house where the applicant proposed a significant two-storey rear extension. While the Planning Authority granted permission, they imposed conditions reducing the first-floor depth from 4.3m to 3.5m and requiring a flat roof instead of a pitched one. The applicant appealed these specific conditions. The Inspector's assessment focused on 'overbearance' and 'subservience' under the Dublin City Development Plan. The Inspector argued that...
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