3248/23

PERMISSION: The development consists of permission for the development of a new rear single storey garage that will be ancillary to the existing house. The garage will comprise of an area of 65 sq.m in total. Planning permission will also provide for vehicular access via a roller shutter door via the existing rear lane.

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended the removal of Conditions 2 and 3(a), concluding that the proposed mono-pitch garage design would not significantly impact residential amenity and that vehicular access from the rear laneway is acceptable for an existing dwelling.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The mono-pitch roof profile and scale of the garage would not be particularly overbearing or result in significant overshadowing of the adjacent property (No. 165) due to the depth of the rear gardens and the 21-metre separation distance from the main dwelling house.
  • Restricting vehicular access from the rear laneway is unwarranted as the parking standards cited by the Planning Authority typically apply to 'new developments' rather than domestic storage for an existing dwelling, especially as it does not result in the loss of on-street parking.
  • The proposed development is consistent with the established character of the area, which includes several substantial detached garages accessed via the same laneway, and it aligns with the 'Z1' zoning objective to protect and improve residential amenities.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Z1 - Sustainable Residential NeighbourhoodsAppendix 5: Transport and MobilitySection 4: Car Parking StandardsTable 2 of Appendix 5Section 4.1: Presumption against removal of on-street parkingAppendix 18: Ancillary Residential AccommodationSection 1.0: Residential Extensions

Decision Document Summary

This first-party appeal was lodged by Garrett O'Neil against two conditions attached to a grant of permission for a detached garage at 163 Corrib Road, Terenure. Condition 2 required a reduction in height and a change to a flat roof, while Condition 3(a) sought to omit vehicular access from a rear laneway to prevent the property from exceeding a one-car parking maximum. The site consists of a mid-terrace house with a deep rear garden bordering a laneway used by neighboring properties for garage ...
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