Core Refusal Reason
The proposed two-storey front extension is considered visually obtrusive and out of character with the uniform streetscape due to its excessive massing and projection, while also failing to maintain the mandatory 6-metre minimum driveway length.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The two-storey massing projecting 2.35 metres beyond the established building line would result in a domineering appearance that is inconsistent with the uniform character of Meadow View.
- The proposal fails to comply with the County Development Plan requirement for a minimum driveway length of 6 metres, as the extension reduces the available depth to approximately 5 metres.
- Granting permission would set an undesirable precedent for similar intrusive developments on constrained suburban sites, negatively impacting the visual and residential amenities of the area.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Section 12.3.7.1 (i) ('Extensions to Dwellings – Extensions to the Front')Objective 'A' (To provide residential development and improve residential amenity)Chapter 13 (Land Use Zoning Objectives)Table 13.1.1
Decision Document Summary
The application relates to a proposed two-storey, flat-roof extension to the front of a semi-detached dwelling at 19 Meadow View, Churchtown. The development sought to provide a porch and hallway at ground level and a bedroom extension at the first floor. While the Inspector acknowledged that the additional internal floor area (approx. 11 sqm) was modest, the primary concerns centered on the physical projection of 2.35 metres beyond the existing front building line. The Inspector found that such...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