WEB1032/23

RETENTION: The development to be retained consists of the construction of raising two rendered block walls to a height of 1847mm and length of 1847, both to the front of the property; one of which is a boundary wall and one of which is within the curtilage of the property. Retention permission is also sought for the amalgamation of the pedestrian and vehicular openings into a vehicular entrance of 3395mm wide.

Granted

Core Planning Reasoning

The Inspector recommended a grant of retention permission because the development is consistent with the Z2 zoning objective, does not represent a traffic hazard, and would not seriously injure the visual or residential amenities of the area or adjoining properties.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The widened 3.4m vehicular/pedestrian entrance does not represent a traffic hazard or danger to pedestrian traffic on the public footpath.
  • The retention of the 1.84m high walls does not have an adverse impact on the visual or residential amenity of neighbouring properties, and concerns regarding shadow cast are overstated.
  • The development is in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and complies with the underlying Z2 zoning objective to protect residential conservation areas.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Z2 Zoning ObjectiveChapter 15 (Development Standards)Section 15.6.13 Boundary TreatmentsAppendix 5 (Transport and Mobility: Technical Requirements)Section 4.3 Parking in Front GardensSection 4.3.1 Dimensions and SurfacingSection 4.3.4 Sustainable Urban DrainageSection 4.3.5 Treatment of Front BoundariesSection 4.3.6 Landscape Treatment of Front GardensPolicy SI22Appendix 12 Sustainable Drainage Design and Evaluation Guide

Decision Document Summary

The Inspector's Report reviews a third-party appeal against a grant of retention permission for two rendered block walls (1.84m high) and a widened 3.4m vehicular entrance at 13 Dromard Road, Drimnagh. The site is located in a mid-20th-century housing estate zoned Z2 (Residential Conservation Area). The appellant (the neighbor at No. 15) argued that the walls were overbearing, encroached on their property, and that the entrance exceeded the standard 3m width limit set in the Development Plan. Th...
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