D23B/0446

Retention permission for the development of a single storey rear extension and

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommends a split decision, refusing retention for the rear extension due to significant inaccuracies in the submitted drawings, the absence of a structural report for the shared boundary wall, and a failure to demonstrate sufficient legal interest or neighbor consent for works built on a party wall.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The conversion of the garage into habitable accommodation is acceptable in principle and, subject to the submission of accurate as-built drawings, would not negatively impact the character of the area or residential amenities.
  • The rear extension lacks essential technical documentation, specifically a structural engineer's report, to verify that the 70-year-old shared boundary wall can safely support the new construction.
  • The applicant has failed to prove legal interest or obtain consent from the adjoining owner to build on the party wall, resulting in an unfinished, non-weathertight structure that is overbearing and injurious to the neighbor's residential amenity.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Section 12.3.7.1 Extensions to DwellingsSection 12.8.3.3(i) Private Open Space for HousesObjective A ZoningPolicy Objective CAS 6 Retrofitting and Reuse of Buildings

Decision Document Summary

The application seeks retention permission for a single-storey rear extension and the conversion of a side garage into habitable space at 42 Westbrook Road, Dundrum. The site is zoned 'Objective A', where residential extensions are permitted in principle. While the garage conversion is deemed acceptable, the Inspector recommends refusing the rear extension. The primary issue is that the extension was built directly on top of a shared boundary wall with No. 44. The Inspector found the applicant's...
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