2460283

Permission for development which consists of; permission to retain (a) alterations to the approved front, rear and side elevations (pl. Ref No. 19/274 refers) (b) alterations to the internal ground and 1st floor layout (Pl. Ref No. 19/274 refers) (c) construction of external stairs to the rear (d) widening of front entrance and ancillary site works.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The development was refused due to the incongruous design of the rear dormer and balcony which are out of character with the area and cause significant overlooking of adjacent private amenity spaces.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The proposed rear and side elevation dormer window, associated balcony, and external metal stairs are considered out of character with the existing dwelling and the prevailing design pattern of the established residential neighborhood.
  • The development would result in significant overlooking of the private amenity spaces of adjoining properties, failing to meet minimum separation distance requirements and privacy standards set out in the CDP and national guidelines.
  • The proposal is contrary to specific Development Plan policies regarding residential extensions and sustainable neighborhood consolidation, setting an undesirable precedent for similar incongruous additions in the area.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Policy 3.5 Sustainable Neighbourhoods: Established SuburbsPolicy 3.6 Sustainable Neighbourhoods: Established SuburbsSection 11.3.1 (l) Residential ExtensionsSection 11.3.1 (d) OverlookingSection 11.3.1 (g) Car Parking StandardsSPPR 1 - Separation Distances

Decision Document Summary

This application sought retention permission for various alterations to a detached dwelling at 78 Renmore Park, Renmore, including a second-floor dormer, a rear balcony, and an external metal staircase. While the front elevation alterations were deemed acceptable, the Planning Authority refused the application based on visual impact and residential amenity concerns. The inspector concluded that the dormer and balcony features were visually obstructive, incongruous, and facilitated unacceptable o...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.