Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommended a grant of permission because the development is consistent with the residential zoning of the area, provided that specific modifications (a 1m setback and height reduction) are implemented to prevent an overbearing visual impact on the neighboring property.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The principle of the proposed extension is acceptable under the 'Objective A' zoning which aims to protect or improve residential amenity.
- The depth and 3.5m parapet height of the rear extension would result in a negative and overbearing visual impact on the adjoining property to the west (No. 67).
- The development is considered consistent with proper planning and sustainable development only if a condition is applied to set the extension back 1m from the western boundary and reduce its height to 3.1m.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Objective ASection 12.3.7.1Section 12.3.7.1 (ii)Section 12.3.7.1 (iii)
Decision Document Summary
The application relates to a single-story front, side, and rear extension at 65 Ludford Drive, Dublin 16, a semi-detached dwelling. The proposal involves demolishing a garage and kitchen to make way for a 52.5 sqm extension. While the Planning Authority initially granted permission, a third-party appeal was lodged by neighbors concerned about the extension's height and its proximity to their boundary. The Inspector found that while the front and side elements were acceptable, the rear extension'...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.
View the appeal at An Bord Pleanála