Core Refusal Reason
The proposed side garden dwelling constitutes overdevelopment of a restricted corner site, appearing visually obtrusive and out of character with the established pattern of development due to its scale, bulk, and failure to meet minimum separation distance standards (DMSO26).
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The family flat and rear extension components are acceptable as they meet the Fingal Development Plan's design criteria for residential extensions and do not negatively impact the character of the existing dwelling.
- The proposed infill dwelling fails to provide the required 2.3m separation distance from the existing house, resulting in an cramped arrangement that would negatively affect the privacy and outlook of future occupants.
- The scale and bulk of the new dwelling on a prominent corner site would be visually intrusive and inconsistent with the uniform 1970s suburban character of the River Valley Road area.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Policy SPQHP41Objective SPQHO45Policy SPQHP42Objective SPQHO46Section 14.10.2.3Section 14.10.3Policy CSP12Policy CSP27Policy CSP30Objective SPQHO39Objective SPQHO40Objective SPQHO42Section 14.10.1Objective DMSO19Objective DMSO23Objective DMSO26Objective DMSO28Objective DMSO31Objective DMSO32
Decision Document Summary
This report assesses a three-part development proposal at 2 River Valley Road, Swords: a 20sq.m rear extension, a 50sq.m garage conversion to a family flat, and a new 90sq.m two-storey detached dwelling in the side garden. The site is a corner lot in a mature suburban estate. The Inspector recommends a split decision. The rear extension and family flat are deemed acceptable following revisions that removed a visually incongruous front patio and relocated access. However, the Inspector argues str...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.