Core Planning Reasoning
The development is recommended for grant as it represents a sustainable and innovative adaptation of existing housing stock that, subject to specific design modifications to reduce scale and prevent overlooking, would not significantly impact the residential or visual amenities of the area.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed extension is consistent with the 'A' zoning objective and supports National Planning Framework policies regarding the lifetime adaptation of homes.
- The initial 6.6m projection was considered excessive and potentially overbearing; however, a 1-metre setback to align the first floor with the existing ground floor building line sufficiently mitigates these impacts.
- The removal of the proposed high-level side window in the west elevation is necessary to protect the residential amenity and privacy of the neighboring property at No. 106 Seafield Court.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Chapter 13 Table 13.1.1 (Zoning Objective A)Chapter 2 Policy Objective CS11 (Compact Growth)Chapter 4 Policy Objective PHP19 (Existing Housing Stock-Adaptation)Chapter 12 Section 12.3.7.1 (Extensions to Dwellings)Section 12.3.7.1 (ii) (Extensions to the Rear)
Decision Document Summary
The application relates to a proposed 28sqm first-floor extension over an existing ground-floor structure at 105 Seafield Court, Killiney. The site is a semi-detached suburban dwelling where a previous, larger two-storey extension was refused under D17B/0288. Two third-party appeals were lodged by neighboring residents (No. 104 and No. 106), citing significant concerns regarding overshadowing, loss of daylight to kitchens/gardens, and the overbearing scale of the proposal. The Inspector acknowle...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