Core Planning Reasoning
The proposed development, comprising modest front, side, and rear extensions along with a detached garden room, is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design that harmonizes with the existing dwelling, protects the residential amenities of neighboring properties, and retains sufficient private open space for the subject site.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed extensions are modest in proportion and employ a contemporary design approach using materials, such as copper-coloured cladding and brick, that complement the existing character and established colours of the dwelling and estate.
- The development will not result in significant adverse impacts on the residential amenities of neighboring properties in terms of overlooking, overshadowing, or overbearing appearance, maintaining adequate separation distances of approximately 9m to 11m.
- The remaining private open space of approximately 33sqm is considered satisfactory and of sufficient quality for the two-bedroom dwelling, noting that the Development Plan allows for discretionary relaxation of quantitative standards for existing dwellings.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Objective ‘A’Chapter 12 (Development Management)Section 12.3.1.1 (Context)Section 12.3.7 (Additional Accommodation in Existing Built-up Areas)Section 12.3.7.1(i) (Extensions to the Front)Section 12.3.7.1(ii) (Extensions to the rear)Section 12.3.7.1(iii) (Extensions to the side)Section 12.3.7.1(iv) (Alterations to Roof/Attic Level)Section 12.3.7.4 (Detached Habitable Rooms)Table 12.10 (Private Open Space Requirements)Section 12.8.3.3 (Relaxation of Standards)
Decision Document Summary
The application seeks permission for several extensions to a semi-detached dwelling at 50 Richmond Park, Monkstown, including a front porch, a two-storey side extension, a cantilevered first-floor rear extension, and a detached garden office/gym. The site is situated in a mature residential area zoned to protect and improve residential amenity (Objective 'A'). A third-party appeal was lodged by neighbors at no. 53, primarily concerned with the overbearing nature of the side extension, loss of da...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