2398

an extension to the side and rear of the existing house (75m2), removal of existing sheds, reconfiguration of existing internal layout, new window opes and external insulation to the existing house, widening of the existing entrance gate, new wastewater treatment system, and all associated site works

No decision recorded

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended refusal primarily because of the absence of a detailed construction management plan to address critical structural stability concerns regarding the compatibility of new concrete blocks placed atop traditional random rubble masonry walls.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • While the increased eaves height and soffit overhang are material changes, they are not considered so excessive as to be overbearing on the adjacent property or detrimental to the character of the Architectural Conservation Area.
  • The technical concerns raised by the Conservation Officer regarding the incompatibility of concrete fabric atop traditional limestone masonry are well-founded and were not adequately addressed in the appeal.
  • In the absence of a comprehensive construction management plan prepared by a competent expert, the development represents a risk to residential amenity and is contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Limerick City and County Development Plan 2022-2028: Objective CGR O13Rathkeale Local Area Plan (LAP) 2023-2029: Objective H O1(c)Rathkeale Local Area Plan (LAP) 2023-2029: Objective HE O5Rathkeale Local Area Plan (LAP) 2023-2029: Opportunity Site No. 4National Planning Framework (NPF) 2018Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas Guidelines 2009: Section 6.2Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas Guidelines 2009: Section 6.3

Decision Document Summary

The case involves a first-party appeal against the refusal of retention permission for amendments to the eaves height of a two-storey dwelling under construction at The Square, Rathkeale, Co. Limerick. The site is located immediately adjacent to an Architectural Conservation Area (ACA). The Planning Authority's original refusal was based on the design's 'overbearing nature' due to the increased height and resulting soffit overhang. During the assessment, the Inspector disagreed with the Planning...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.