D23A/0663/WEB

For full planning permission for the following to the existing two storey fully

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended the removal of Condition 2(a) but the retention of Condition 2(b); while the first-floor extension was deemed acceptable following revisions, the ground-floor extension required a 1-metre reduction in width to prevent an oppressive sense of enclosure and protect the residential amenity of the adjoining property at No. 54 Ballinteer Park.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • Condition 2(a) should be removed as the first-floor extension amendments submitted at the Further Information stage are sufficient to mitigate overshadowing and overbearance.
  • Condition 2(b) must be retained because the ground-floor extension would sit directly in front of a neighboring window, creating an unacceptable and oppressive impact on residential amenity.
  • The appeal should be dealt with under Section 139 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, focusing specifically on the contested conditions rather than the whole application.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Zoning Objective 'A'Policy CA5Policy CA6Policy CA7Policy PHP20Policy PHP35Section 12.2.1Section 12.2.6Section 12.3Section 12.3.4Section 12.3.7Section 12.3.7.1Section 12.3.7.1 (i)Section 12.3.7.1 (ii)Section 12.3.7.1 (iii)Section 12.3.7.1 (iv)Section 12.4.8.3

Decision Document Summary

The application at 53 Ballinteer Park involves the demolition of a rear extension and porch to facilitate a new part two-storey, part single-storey rear extension and various internal/external alterations. The site is a semi-detached dwelling located at the end of a cul-de-sac with a boundary that cants tightly toward the neighboring No. 54. The Planning Authority granted permission but imposed Condition 2, which required a 2m reduction in the depth of the first floor and a 1m reduction in the w...
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