WEB1782/22
The development will consist of a two-story extension to the rear comprising: kitchen, bathroom and corridor at ground floor level and bedroom, bathroom and corridor at first floor level. New windows at first floor level facing south, north and east with glazing design preventing views to east and north; windows at ground floor level facing south, north and east. The development includes a courtyard garden facing the east boundary. The rear extension has been designed to limit overall height by following the existing level changes onsite; the proposed extension eaves will be approximately 0.82 meters below existing eaves height, the extension roof ridge will be 1.7 meters below the existing roof ridge and the extension ground floor will be approximately 1 meter below existing ground floor level.
Core Refusal Reason
The proposed two-storey extension, by reason of its excessive scale, depth, and height, would result in significant overshadowing, loss of daylight, and visual obtrusion for adjoining properties, while failing to harmonize with the host dwelling and the uniform character of the surrounding residential area.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The extension lacks subordination to the host dwelling, with a depth of 11.204m which is nearly double that of the original terrace house, resulting in a visually incongruous and overbearing addition.
- The development would cause a significant and material deterioration in the levels of sunlight and daylight for the occupants of neighboring properties, particularly No.s 112 and 116 Killester Avenue.
- The proposal fails to respect the established uniform and coherent pattern of development within the 1940s/50s residential scheme and would set an undesirable precedent for similar injurious developments.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This appeal relates to a proposed two-storey rear extension at No. 114 Killester Avenue, a mid-terrace dwelling in a mature Dublin 5 suburb characterized by uniform 1940s/1950s residential architecture. Dublin City Council originally refused permission, citing overbearing appearance and negative impacts on daylight and sunlight. The Inspector's assessment focused on the impact on residential amenities and the lack of design subordination. Key arguments against the proposal included its excessive...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