Core Refusal Reason
The development is refused due to its excessive scale, height, and bulk, which are out of character with the terrace of single-storey dwellings and result in significant visual, overbearing, and overshadowing impacts on adjoining residential properties.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The cumulative scale, height, and bulk of the development are inconsistent with the character of the original dwelling and its location within a terrace of single-storey houses.
- The extension projects nearly 10m from the rear elevation, resulting in significant overshadowing and a loss of daylight to the neighbouring properties at No. 7 and No. 11 Glenmore Road.
- The design and fenestration of the dormer extension and link corridor result in direct overlooking and a perceived loss of privacy for adjoining residents, failing to meet development plan standards.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028Section 1.1 General Design PrinciplesSection 4.0 Alterations at Roof Level / Attics / Dormers / Additional FloorsAppendix 18 (Ancillary Residential Accommodation)Section 1.2 (Rear Extensions)Section 1.4 (Privacy)Section 1.6 (Daylight)Table 18.1 (Dormer Window Guidance)Zoning Objective Z1
Decision Document Summary
This report concerns a first-party appeal for the retention of a two-storey rear extension at 9 Glenmore Road, Dublin 7, a single-storey terraced dwelling. The development includes a dormer attic bedroom, an en-suite, a courtyard, and a link corridor to a first-floor office area. The Inspector notes that a previous permission (Ref: 2182/19) specifically required the omission of the link and courtyard to protect residential amenity. The as-built development extends 10m from the rear wall with a 5...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