4744/23

PROTECTED STRUCTURE: PERMISSION:Permission is sought for the restoration, extension and refurbishment of the existing protected structure comprising of; Demolition of existing two-storey and single-storey extension and boiler house to the rear of the existing dwelling, Demolition and reconstruction of boundary wall to the rear of the existing dwelling, Internal alterations and restorative works, Restoration works to front facade, including; reinstatement of parapet wall, adjustment of a first floor window, replacement of existing door and windows, replacement of existing render with traditional lime-render, Construction of a new three-storey, two-storey, single-storey extension with flat roofs and rooflights to the rear of the existing dwelling. Demolition and removal of part of rear pitch of existing roof and construction of new flat-roof, and All associated ancillary site works.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposed extension is excessive in scale and massing, resulting in a negative impact on the architectural character of the Protected Structure and the residential amenity of neighboring properties.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The scale, mass, and height of the extension would negatively impact the character of the existing dwelling and cause overbearance to adjoining residential amenities.
  • The development would cause serious injury to the architectural character, legibility, and setting of the Protected Structure and neighboring historic buildings.
  • The proposal contravenes specific heritage policies and would set an undesirable precedent for similar developments within and adjacent to historic buildings in the area.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Appendix 18Z1 zoning objectivePolicy BHA2Policy BHA3Section 6.8.13 of the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines

Decision Document Summary

The proposal sought permission for the restoration and extension of a Protected Structure located at 22 Parnell Road, Dublin 12. Dublin City Council refused the application on the grounds that the proposed development's scale and massing were visually incongruous and would negatively affect the character and setting of the historic building. Additionally, the extension was deemed to have a detrimental impact on the residential amenity of adjacent properties due to its overbearing nature and was ...
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.