4076/23
PROTECTED STRUCTURE:PERMISSION & RETENION: The development consists of external development works to the existing dwelling which is a Protected Structure. The development will consist of the installation of solar panels to south facing roof slope comprising of 22 no. PV panels totalling c.43 sqm in area. Retention permission is sought for the existing single storey roofed terrace to rear garden totalling 37sqm in area, the installation of 7 no. 210 litre rainwater harvesting butts located to side of dwelling behind front street facing pedestrian gate and for timber cladding to rear boundary walls
Core Reason for the Refused Part
The Inspector recommends a full grant of permission, overturning the Planning Authority's split decision, on the basis that the works (solar panels, roofed terrace, timber cladding, and water butts) are modest, reversible interventions that do not materially affect the architectural character or integrity of the Protected Structure.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The installation of solar panels on the rear and side roof slopes is consistent with climate action policies and has a negligible visual impact from the restricted-access rear laneway.
- The single-storey roofed terrace is a lightweight, functional, and entirely reversible structure that does not damage the historic fabric of the dwelling or impact public views from Chelmsford Road.
- The timber boundary cladding and rainwater harvesting butts are acceptable additions that enhance residential amenity and sustainability without negatively affecting the setting of the Protected Structure.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This report concerns a Section 37 appeal for development at 33 Chelmsford Road, a Protected Structure in a Z2 Conservation Area. The proposal includes the installation of 22 PV solar panels and the retention of a 37sqm lightweight roofed terrace, 7 rainwater butts, and timber boundary wall cladding. Dublin City Council originally issued a split decision, refusing the terrace and cladding on the grounds of poor materiality and adverse impact on heritage. However, the Inspector argues that the 'po...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