4300/23

The development will consist of demolishing an existing ground floor only extension to the rear of the existing house and replacing with a new ground & first floor extension. A new first floor extension to the side of the existing house extending the existing roof profile over. A new detached single storey extension in the rear garden to be used for games room, gym, storage & sensory room and all ancillary works.

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended granting permission (recommending the Board uphold the Planning Authority's decision to grant) because the development is consistent with the 'Z1' residential zoning objective and, subject to conditions reducing the first-floor depth and omitting certain windows, would not negatively impact the visual or residential amenities of the area.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The first-floor rear extension should be restricted to a 3.5m depth (rather than the proposed 4m) to maintain consistency with neighboring permitted developments and protect the aspect of adjoining properties.
  • Proposed bathroom windows on the shared boundary with No. 238 Mourne Road must be omitted to prevent undue loss of privacy and maintain proper planning standards.
  • The detached pavilion in the rear garden is acceptable despite its large size (12.5m x 4.5m) because the subject site has a substantial garden, provided its use remains strictly ancillary to the main house.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028Zoning Objective Z1Chapter 15 (Development Standards), Section 15.11Appendix 18, Section 1.1 (General Design Principles)Appendix 18, Section 1.2 (Rear Extensions)Appendix 18, Section 1.3 (Side Extensions)Appendix 18, Section 1.4 (Privacy)Appendix 18, Section 1.6 (Daylight)Appendix 18, Section 2 (Detached Habitable Rooms)

Decision Document Summary

The application at 240 Mourne Road, Drimnagh, involves the demolition of a ground floor rear extension and the construction of a replacement two-storey rear extension, a first-floor side extension, and a large detached ancillary pavilion in the rear garden. The site is an end-of-terrace property with a significant garden area. A third-party appeal was lodged by the neighbor at No. 238, citing concerns over loss of daylight, overbearing impact, terracing effects, and potential boundary encroachme...
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