Core Planning Reasoning
The appeal was a first-party challenge to Condition 2 of a grant of permission. The Inspector concluded that the dormer's width should be restricted to 3.2m and materials must match the existing roof to protect residential and visual amenity, but recommended omitting the 250mm ridgeline set-down requirement as the structure does not exceed the main ridge height.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The width of the rear dormer window should be reduced to 3.2 metres to ensure it remains subordinate to the roof and does not dominate the rear elevation or impact adjoining properties.
- The requirement to set the dormer 250mm down from the ridgeline should be omitted as the proposal does not extend above the main ridge line and will not negatively affect visual amenities.
- Condition 2(c) regarding external materials matching the existing roof finish should be retained to ensure visual consistency and avoid ambiguity in the final development.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Dublin City Development Plan 2022 – 2028Zoning Z1Section 4.0 (Appendix 18) Alterations at Roof Level/ Attics/ Dormers/ Additional FloorsAppendix 18 - Attic Conversions / Dormer WindowsTable 18.1 Dormer Window Guidance
Decision Document Summary
This report evaluates a first-party appeal under Section 139 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 against Condition No. 2 of Dublin City Council's decision to grant permission for an attic conversion at 184 Corrib Road, Terenure. The development consists of a 20.78sqm attic conversion with a front roof window and a rear flat-roof dormer. The subject site is a two-storey terraced house in an area zoned Z1. The Inspector focused the assessment on the three sub-clauses of Condition 2: (a) restr...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