5013/22

RETENTION: Retention permission for existing attic conversion as constructed including dormer extensions to the rear and side of the attic conversion and all associated site works.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The retention of the side and rear dormer extensions was refused as they are considered visually dominant, over-scaled, and obtrusive in a prominent corner location, failing to be subordinate to the host dwelling and setting an undesirable precedent that would injure residential and visual amenity.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The side and rear dormer extensions are excessive in scale and bulk, failing to be subordinate to the original roof structure and effectively giving the host dwelling a three-storey appearance that is incongruous with the established character of the area.
  • The development as constructed fails to comply with the specific design criteria set out in Appendix 18 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028, particularly regarding necessary setbacks from eaves and ridgelines.
  • Granting retention would establish an undesirable precedent for similar over-scaled developments, resulting in serious injury to the visual and residential amenities of this prominent corner site and the wider streetscape.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Section 16.2.2.3 (2016-2022 Plan)Appendix 17 (2016-2022 Plan)Section 14.7.1 (Z1 Zoning - 2022-2028 Plan)Section 15.13.3 (Infill/Side Garden Housing)Chapter 5 (Quality Housing)Chapter 15 (Development Management Standards)Appendix 18, Section 1.0, 1.1, 4.0, 5.0Table 18.1 (Dormer Window Guidance)

Decision Document Summary

This report evaluates a first-party appeal against Dublin City Council's refusal to grant retention permission for an attic conversion featuring side and rear dormer extensions at No. 2 Riverside Park, Clonshaugh. The subject site is a prominent corner property characterized by semi-detached two-storey dwellings with a highly uniform character. A previous planning application (P.A. Ref. 3584/22) granted permission for similar works but included Condition No. 12, which required the dormers to be ...
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