5028/22
Permission for the removal of the existing rear extension [13.88sq.m.] and rear sheds [10.43sq.m.], to be replaced with a new rear single-storey extension [39.60sq.m.] with a green sedum roof and patio. An attic conversion [14.17sq.m.] including rear facing dormer and modifications to the roof; a hipped gable, upgraded insulation, and new stairs from the first floor. Works also include a new drainage connection, modifications to the existing house layout including upgraded insulation, new window openings, boundaries, and all associated site works to enable the works.
Core Planning Reasoning
The proposed development is recommended for grant as it is consistent with the 'Z1' zoning objective of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028, respects the character of the existing 1930s semi-detached dwelling, and, subject to design modifications to the roof and dormer, will not adversely impact the residential or visual amenities of the area.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The development successfully balances the modernization of a c.1930s property with the need to protect the established residential character and streetscape of Clontarf.
- The Inspector determined that the single-storey extension and attic conversion, as modified by conditions to retain the hipped roof profile, would not cause undue overshadowing or loss of light to adjacent properties.
- Third-party concerns regarding structural integrity and boundary encroachment are noted as civil matters to be resolved under Section 34(13) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, and do not constitute grounds for refusal.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This Inspector's Report assesses a proposal for a single-storey rear extension (39.6sqm) and an attic conversion (14.17sqm) with a rear dormer at 22 Copeland Avenue, Clontarf. The site consists of a 1930s semi-detached house in a mature residential area zoned 'Z1'. A third-party appeal from a neighbor at No. 24 raised concerns about overshadowing, structural risks to boundary structures, and potential encroachment. The Inspector argues that the extension's height (3.575m) and the site's westerly...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