An Bord Pleanála Inspector s Report PL29S.243675 Development Description: Address: Construct house Rear of 352 Kimmage Road Lower, Dublin, 6W Planning Application Planning Authority: Dublin City Council Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 2479/14 Applicant: Type of Application: Planning Authority Decision: Christine Wall Permission Grant with conditions Planning Appeal Appellant: Type of Appeal: Observers: (1) Lelia Murtagh (2) Michael and Barbara Kelly and Others (3) Seamus and Ruth McHugh Multiple Third Parties None Date of Site Inspection: 29/9/14 Inspector: Appendices: Louise Kiernan Appendix 1: Site Context Map Appendix 2: Key Map and Associated Photos Appendix 3: Dublin City Development Plan written extracts PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 25
1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The site is with an area of 928 sq.m. is located in an inner suburban area to the rear of an existing dwelling house at no. 352 Kimmage Road Lower, Dublin 6W (appendix 1: site context map). The existing house is a substantial four bay house finished in a neutral coloured render with some brick detailing at the ground floor level and brick chimney details. The site comprises part of the rear garden of a detached two-storey dwelling house, which also contains a detached single storey unit which appears to be in residential use in its rear garden area. Access to the site is via an existing lane to the side of the existing dwelling house. The public end of this laneway is marked with a solid steel gate. Along the lane there is rear access to the rear of houses on Riversdale Grove. The laneway is in grass and would not appear to be regularly used for vehicular access. To the south of the site of the proposed house is a terrace of two-storey houses at Hazelbrook Road. To the rear of the site is a single storey dwellinghouse, 15A Hazelbrook Road. Boundaries around the site of the proposed development and adjoining the existing laneway are varied but include block walls of approximately 1.8m height some of which have been extended with timber panels. There is no significant difference in level across the site or between the site and the adjoining lands. The site and surrounding area are further documented in appendix 2: key may and associated photos. 2.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed development consists of permission for construction of a twostorey three bedroom flat roof dwelling with rooflights (area 177 sq.m.) and associated site works. Vehicular access to the proposed dwelling is via the existing laneway to the side and rear of no. 352 Kimmage Road Lower. 3.0 FURTHER INFORMATION SOUGHT AND RECEIVED On 29/5/14 the Planning Authority sought the following further information:- 1. The Planning Authority is concerned in relation to the potential for overlooking from first floor windows in the northeastern and southwestern elevations of the proposed dwelling. Submit details of how they propose to address this issue, for example; a. Amend the location of the window to bedroom no. 2 at first floor level so that any views are into the subject site, towards the northwest. b. Set back the first floor void area over the front doorway entrance away from the northeastern boundary and omit or reduce in scale the windows in the northeastern and southwestern elevations serving this void and landing area. 2. Submit documentation indicating legal interest in the lands of the access laneway located along the northwestern site boundary. 3. Submit details of any works proposed to the existing gateway entrance to the access laneway from Kimmage Road Lower. PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 25
On 10/6/14 the Planning Authority received the following further information:- 1.a.Revised drawings are attached indicating the removal of the window in bedroom no. 2 facing out onto the laneway, and the addition of a new timber clad bow window to the other side of the room, with a glazed window looking northwest as per the window in the master bedroom. b. With regard to the windows are proposing the following:- (i) Make the glazing opaque to both sides (not a film). (ii) The introduction of a timber panel screen to the front of the glazing. See attached drawings. It would be the applicant s preference to maintain the size of the opening for these windows, especially on the northeast side as it helps the design. However can reduce the glazing element. The opaque glass will mitigate against any privacy issues. The timber panelling option will substantially reduce the amount of glazing. Have also indicated the option for both a timber panel screen and opaque glazing. Request that are allowed to maintain the position of the northeast window ope, which is designed to tie into the boundary wall as this is an important design feature. Have included a cross section through this area with distances to the houses on either side. If change the glazing element (opaque glass and/or timber screen) this, along with the long distances will not pose a concern for the neighbours. 2. Attached a letter from the applicant s Solicitor along with a copy of the deed map indicating the works proposed will be carried out within the site outlined in red on the attached map. 3. Are willing to enhance the entrance with electric gates, provide key fobs to all parties that have right of way and will also pave the laneway and provide suitable lighting. This will enhance the neighbour s properties. 4.0 PLANNING HISTORY 1417/08 permission granted for construction of a two-storey four bedroom detached dormer bungalow (210 sq.m.) and associated site works at the site to the rear of 352 Kimmage Road Lower. Vehicular access to the proposed dwelling is via the existing laneway to the side and rear. PL 29S. 221176 (3011/06) permission refused by An Bord Pleanala for a four bed dormer bungalow accessed via existing laneway to rear of existing property at 352 Kimmage Road Lower for the following reason:- Having regard to the scale of the proposed house, to its proximity to the site boundaries, to the position of the windows serving the first floor rooms and to the intrusion into the existing lane, from which lane houses on Riversdale Grove currently enjoy access, it is considered that the proposed development would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. 0230/92 permission granted for a two-storey extension to the rear of no. 352 Kimmage Road. PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 25
5.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN Dublin City Council Development Plan 2011-2017 The site is zoned objective Z1 To protect, provide and improve residential amenities. The following sections are of relevance (appendix 3):- 11.4.2 Sustainable Residential Areas 11.4.7 Houses 15.10.1 Sustainable Residential Neighbourhoods Zone Z1 17.1.1 Design 17.4 Plot Ratio 17.5 Site Coverage 17.9 Standards for Residential Accommodation 17.9.5 Backland Development 6.0 REPORTS RECEIVED Roads Traffic Planning Division It is proposed to provide 1 no. dwelling in the rear garden of no. 352 Kimmage Road Lower. Access to the dwelling is proposed via an existing private laneway. The laneway varies in width from 3.5m, at its junction with Kimmage Road Lower to 2.5m. It is proposed to increase the width of the laneway to between 3.5m and 5m. The laneway also provides access to the rear of 10-15 Riversdale Grove. It is noted that there are a number of objections on file regarding the use of the laneway by the applicant. As the proposed development is for 1 no. dwelling only and it is proposed to increase the width of the laneway there is no objection. Conditions are recommended. Engineering Department (Drainage Division) no objection subject to conditions. City Archaeologist It is noted that the proposed development is within the zone of archaeological constraint for Recorded Monument DU022-003 the Poddle River, Dublin City, which is subject to statutory protection under Section 12 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994. Further, the site in question is located within the Zone of Archaeological Interest in the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-17. The following should be attached as a condition of any grant of planning permission. Conditions are recommended. 7.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY S DECISION Dublin City Council issued a decision to grant permission for the proposed development subject to 10 no. conditions. Of note are the following conditions:- 2. a) The opaque glazing and timber screens shall be provided to the first floor windows in the north eastern and south western elevations serving the void/stairway and landing area, as indicated on the drawings submitted on 10 th June 2014. PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 25
b) The first floor en-suite bathroom windows in the north eastern elevation shall be permanently glazed with obscure glass. Reason: To protect residential amenities. 3. The development shall comply with the following requirements of Drainage Division of Dublin City Council: a) The developer shall comply with the Greater Dublin Regional Code of Practice for Drainage Works Version 6.0 b) A connection from this development to the public Surface Water sewer network will only be granted when the developer has obtained the written permission of the Drainage Division and fulfilled all the planning requirements including the payment of any financial levies. All expense associated with carrying out the connection works are the responsibility of the developer. Developers are not permitted to connect to the public drainage network system without written permission from the Drainage Division. Any unauthorised connections shall be removed by the Drainage Division at the developer s expense. A licence will be required from the Drainage Division to allow the connection work to be carried out. Permission of the Roads Dept must also be obtained for any work in the public roadway. c) The development is to be drained on a completely separate system with separate connections to the public foul and surface water systems. d) As no drainage details have been submitted, the developer shall submit two copies of a detailed site drainage plan directly to the Drainage Division of Dublin City Council for written approval. These plans shall be submitted not later than the submission of the commencement notice for the development, and drainage works shall not commence prior to the issuing of such written approval. e) The development shall incorporate Sustainable Drainage Systems in the management of stormwater. Full details of these shall be agreed in writing with Drainage Division prior to commencement of construction. f) The developer shall ensure that an appropriate flood risk impact assessment, in accordance with the OPW Guidelines, is carried out for the proposed development. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development. 4. The developer shall comply with the following conditions of the Roads and Traffic Planning Division: a) The laneway shall be upgraded to taking in charge standards of Dublin City Council. b) A Construction Management Plan shall be submitted for the written agreement of Roads & Traffic Department prior to commencement of development. c) All costs incurred by Dublin City Council, including any repairs to the public road and services necessary as a result of the development, shall be at the expense of the developer. PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 25
d) The developer shall be obliged to comply with the requirements set out in the Code of Practice. Reason: To ensure a satisfactory standard of development. 7. a) The site and building works required to implement the development shall only be carried out between the hours of: Mondays to Fridays 7.00am to 6.00pm Saturday 8.00am. to 2.00pm Sundays and Public Holidays No activity on site. b) Deviation from these times will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances where prior written approval has been received from Dublin City Council. Such approval may be given subject to conditions pertaining to the particular circumstances being set by Dublin City Council. Reason: In order to safeguard the amenities of adjoining residential occupiers. 8. a) During the construction and demolition phases, the proposed development shall comply with British Standard 5228 Noise Control on Construction and open sites Part 1. Code of practice for basic information and procedures for noise control. Reason: In order to ensure a satisfactory standard of development, in the interests of residential amenity. 9. The site development works and construction works shall be carried out in such a manner as to ensure that the adjoining street(s) are kept clear of debris, soil and other material and if the need arises for cleaning works to be carried out on the adjoining public roads, the said cleaning works shall be carried out at the developers expense. Reason: To ensure that the adjoining roadways are kept in a clean and safe condition during construction works in the interests of orderly development. 8.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL 3 no. Third Party appeals have been received from (1) Lelia Murtagh of 11 Riversdale Grove; (2) Michael and Barbara Kelly and Others of Hazelbrook Road; and (3) Seamus and Ruth McHugh of 14 Riversdale Grove against the decision of Dublin City Council to grant permission for the proposed development. The main grounds of appeal are outlined below:- (1) Lelia Murtagh, 11 Riversdale Grove Right of Way The lane is a right of way and the development will diminish same. PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 25
Existing openings have not been indicated on the plans. Drainage The lane contains the main sewerage pipe for Riversdale Grove. This information has not been provided on the drawings. The details submitted for the proposed drainage are incomplete. It is not clear where the new stormwater pipework will be placed and if third party lands will be required. Not clear what upgrading/replacement works will be needed on the foul sewer. Irish Water is not obliged to take this new sewer pipe in charge. More design and construction specifications need to be provided. Road Safety The first 15m of the access road is approximately 3m in width with high walls on both sides. This does not comply with any Road Safety Standard and if a car and pedestrian meet it could be very dangerous. The sight distance from the access road is substandard and the safety of pedestrians on Lower Kimmage Road will be significantly diminished. The access road will not have footpaths, accordingly hazard for pedestrians will be increased further. Residents of Riversdale Grove when using their garden access/exit will be endangered as a result of increased vehicles. No provision made for a setback of the new access road to allow residents exit safely. No evidence that a Road Safety Audit was carried out. Construction Work The way construction work will be conducted and its impact on Riversdale Grove residents are inadequately addressed. Essential construction traffic and works do not impede access outside specified times. No attempt to guard against structural damage to properties. Unsuitability of narrow part of lane for additional services The narrow 3m section of roadway has in it foundations walls, buildings, an existing watermain and sewer. It is likely that the developer will want to bring services through this already congested section. Such clustering of services would be unsafe as maintenance of the existing sewer and water supply would be comprised. Upgrading of road The road standard quoted in condition 4 Taking in charge standards is inappropriate for various reasons including that the roadway is gated. Gate The information regarding the erection of electronic gates and use of a fob system is vague and does not take into consideration the legal rights of other users. Any decision regarding the type of gate and security devices should be made in consultation with residents of Riversdale PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 25
Grove. The unrestricted right of way for all persons entitled to use the laneway must be protected. (2) Michael and Barbara Kelly and Others of Hazelbrook Road: Does not constitute acceptable backland development Conflicts with the established character and scale of development. Its alignment causes significant loss of amenity to existing properties in terms of visual amenity, loss of light, privacy and overlooking. Will significantly increase the plot ratio of the existing dwelling which has already been extended. Local plot ratios are considerably less dense. The floor layout is inaccessible for wheelchair use and in contravention of Building Regulations and generates an increase in height of 750mm. The height of the lounge is 3.6m, 1.2m higher than the standard 2.4m. Did not condition windows in bedroom no. 2 as proposed in the revised drawings. Will injure and impinge on amenities and property in the area. The proposed opaque glazing and timber panel screening are lacking in detail as the effectiveness of opaque glazing depends on window openings. Such modifications the mass and scale which is totally out of character with the surrounding residential properties (photos attached). Introduces a substantial two-storey, flat roofed, built mass into a garden setting where the adjacent properties are of pitched roof design. The alignment cuts across all properties in the immediate vicinity. The Development Plan 17.1.1 states that roof forms should harmonise with and not clash with the city s traditional roof forms. This development clashes with surrounding roof forms (photos attached). Dramatic departure in style from that previously granted as per 1417/08. The drawings give the impression of a lot of flat roofed property immediately adjacent to the site which is erroneous (photos attached). A precedent for backland development has been established at 15a Hazelbrook Road, where it was stipulated that the building should be single storey only with a low pitched roof. There were also conditions for improvement of screening to protect the amenity of existing houses. Such considerations should apply. Due to the number of houses that abut this site a 3m eaves parapet level is correct. Does not comply with Z1 zoning to protect, provide and improve residential amenities. Conflicts with policy QH19 to ensure that new housing development close to existing houses, reflects the character and scale of the existing houses. (3) Seamus and Ruth McHugh, 14 Riversdale Grove: Planning History As per PL 29S. 221176 permission was refused for construction of a house accessed via the laneway due to the scale, proximity to the site boundaries, position of the windows serving the first floor rooms and intrusion into the existing lane. PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 25
As per 1417/08 condition 2 stipulated that the external finish shall match the existing house in materials and colour and the width of the laneway increased to 5.5 metres. The development does not comply with same. Impact on the use of the laneway The rear access lane is shared. Have attempted to mislead the Planning Authority by omitting the access points from the drawings. Before agreements on paving and lighting are reached, should demonstrate agreement with residents of Riversdale Grove. Street lighting may have a serious impact on the amount of artificial light entering their house. No drawings or details submitted which address the location, number, design and maintenance programme of the proposed street lighting. Unclear whether a footpath is to be included on the lane. As the lane will serve pedestrian and vehicular traffic a footpath should be provided. As a shared laneway, an agreement is required between all users before any changes in the design or function can take place. These details should not be dealt with by attachment of conditions as third party rights are removed from the compliance process. Laneway design Unclear why the Council did not attach a condition requiring the lane be extended to a width of 5.5 metres as the planning history had a condition requiring same for the safe passing of traffic and to make provision for pedestrians. The drawings identify a laneway of only 5m width and which has lack of regard for safety of residents of Riversdale Grove. No planned widening indicated at the start of the lane. This is unacceptable for vehicular and pedestrian safety. Note the previous recommendation of the Board Inspector in PL 29S. 221176 that a condition be attached requiring part of the front garden of the existing house be reserved as part of the laneway. This would avoid conflicting movements between vehicles and pedestrians. Should permission be granted request the Board insist on a laneway width of 5.5m from the rear of the existing dwelling and a pull in area to accommodate a car in the front garden of the existing house. The existing wall and telegraph pole prevent sufficient visibility of other vehicles or pedestrians prior to turning into or out of the lane. Lane access/exit point is not splayed, therefore offering no sightline. Emergency services will be unable to access. Design Very modern and not in keeping with the character of the area. The previous grant of permission as per 1417/08 specifically requested that the external finish shall match the existing house in respect of materials and colour. The proposal fails to comply with this. Flat roof design and rooflights would not be in keeping with the area. Existing backland development in this area is single storey. PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 25
Serious security, privacy and access implications. The orientation of the proposed house along the northern boundary will be visually obtrusive, result in overlooking and have a huge impact on light. Despite the revisions proposed, request the proposal be set back further. If request addition information the following should be sought:- o The access points of nos. 10-15 Riversdale Grove are shown on the site layout drawing. o Details regarding the proposed lighting, surface material and pedestrian facilities for the laneway. o The laneway width is increased to a minimum of 5.5 metres from the rear of the existing house to the rear of the site of no. 15. o A pull in area to accommodate a car be provided in the front garden of the existing house and the front boundary between the lane and the house be modified at the intersection with Kimmage Road Lower. o The proposal is set back from the northern boundary to increase the separation distance from the appellant s property with provision made for a single storey design. 9.0 RESPONSES First Party Response: Right of Way to the Laneway This application was made with full knowledge of the rights of the third parties that have a ROW. The area is highlighted in yellow on the application. Do not contend the access afforded the residents by lease. Have not indicated the position of gates etc. to the neighbour s properties as this has no bearing on the intentions of the widened laneway. Can include these on a compliance drawing. The applicant owns the laneway and the residents only have a ROW. As long as this ROW is maintained and facilitates the use currently enjoyed by residents, the applicant has satisfied legal obligations. Will be improving the laneway and all parties will benefit from it being widened, tarmaced, with new gates and electronic access. Access to the Laneway The existing gate is undesirable. Have proposed to change it to a more suitable gate. The gates will be accessed via a FOB, and would be made available to the relevant neighbours. Could provide FOB, SIM card or gate with padlock and key access. Although neighbours have access and a ROW to the lane, do not anticipate neighbours contributing to the gates or access system. Safety of Laneway Cannot increase the width of the lane without knocking the side of no. 352. This is not warranted. The additional traffic generated by one house cannot endanger the users of the lane or the public. PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 25
The applicant only requires access about 15m beyond no. 352. Would be delighted to leave the reminder of the lane as it currently is. Are multiple private access driveways along either side of no. 352. No reason to expect the addition of two cars will cause safety issues. The applicant is amenable to the relocation/realignment of the pier to no. 352 to widen the access point from the main road if required. The Roads Department are happy with sightlines and access. The appellants note it is safe for them to use the lane, but not the potential occupants of the house. This is hardly intensification. Residents being endangered when using their garden access due to the increase in traffic shows this appeal is vexatious. This lane will be increased to 5m and safety will be much improved. No part of the lane 15m from the rear of no. 352 will be impacted upon. Width of Laneway Only require access to the first 15m of the laneway. 4.8m is sufficient for 2 way traffic in this situation. The Roads Department were satisfied with the proposal. Willing to increase the width if deemed necessary by the Board. Lighting to the Laneway Would light the lane for the benefit of all and are happy to discuss this with the residents. Happy to provide low level lighting to the new boundary wall onto the laneway if preferred. Finishes on the Laneway The lane is in a bad state of repair. Are happy to upgrade it and suggest a tarmac finish. The applicant is obliged to provide access only and is not required to get approval for the laneway finish. Do not expect neighbours to contribute to the finish, yet they want input. Any new finish will be an improvement. Could tarmac to the parking access if that suits the neighbours. Do not propose a footpath to the lane, but if deemed necessary will facilitate it by means of compliance drawings. This was not a request of the Roads Department. Drainage Will connect to existing drainage along the lane. No third party lands required and neighbours existing facilities will not be compromised. Happy for an Engineer to provide drainage details for compliance with planning conditions and to liaise with the residents during construction. Construction Works All construction works will be carried out in accordance with planning conditions and good building practice, Health and Safety Plans, Mobilisation Plans etc. PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 25
Will liaise with neighbours and provide access to the contractor throughout the project. House Design As the house is backland it is not a requirement that it must be traditional. The site lends itself to allowing something different. There is a history of unique and well designed interjections to backland sites in the city. No overlooking, overshadowing or encroachment onto the amenities of the adjoining residents. Dealt with the concerns the area planner had during the additional information process to the planner s satisfaction. The height is within an acceptable height for a two-storey building. The residents are working on the assumption that they have the amenity of the large open garden to the rear of no. 352, and believe they will be losing an amenity that is not theirs to enjoy. The internal design is irrelevant to third parties. The building will be complaint with Building Regulations. Any anomalies will be rectified during the tender process and will be compliant with planning. The opportunity to explore contemporary designs juxtaposed into the existing fabric would be a welcome interjection creating a new lease of life for the architectural character of the immediate surroundings. Local Authority Response: The reasoning on which the Planning Authority s decision on this application was based is set out in the planning report and has already been forwarded to An Bord Pleanala. It is not proposed to respond in detail to the grounds of appeal as the Planning Authority considers that the comprehensive planning report deals fully with all the issues raised and justifies its decision. 10.0 ASSESSMENT I am satisfied that the key planning issues in this appeal are as follows: - 1. Planning History and Principle of the Proposed Development 2. Residential Impact on Existing Residential Properties in the Vicinity 3. Visual Impact 4. Traffic Safety Issues 5. Property and Right of Way Issues 6. Drainage Issues 7. Construction Management Issues 8. Building Regulations I will deal with each of these issues in turn: - PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 25
1. Planning History and Principle of the Proposed Development 10.1.1 The proposed development is located in a backland site to the rear of an existing dwelling. As per section 17.9.4 Backland Development of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017, it is stated that Dublin City Council will allow for the provision of comprehensive backland development where the opportunity exists the development of individual backland sites can conflict with the established pattern and character of development in an area Applications for backland development will be considered on their own merits. 10.1.2 It is also noted that there is planning history pertaining to the site. As per PL 29S. 221176 (3011/06), permission was refused by An Bord Pleanala for a dormer bungalow accessed via the existing laneway as it was considered that having regard to the scale of the proposed house, to its proximity to the site boundaries, to the position of the windows serving the first floor rooms and to the intrusion into the existing lane, from which lane houses on Riversdale Grove currently enjoy access, it is considered that the proposed development would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. However it is also noted that subsequently as per reg. ref. 1417/08, the local authority granted permission for a dwelling with vehicular access via this laneway. 10.1.3 The site therefore has a chequered planning history with the principle of a dwelling house having been refused by the Board a number of years ago, but subsequently a dwelling house was granted on the site by the local authority and was not subject to appeal. It is considered that each case is unique and must be assessed on its own individual merits, as is the case in the subsequent sections of this assessment. 2. Residential Impact on Existing Residential Properties in the Vicinity 10.2.1 The site is located on lands which are zoned Z1 with an objective to protect, provide and improve residential amenities. As per section 15.10.1 Sustainable Residential Neighbourhoods Zone Z1 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 it is stated that the general objectives for primarily residential areas are to provide a measure of protection from unsuitable new development or certain bad-neighbour developments that would be incompatible with the overall residential function of the area. Furthermore as per section 17.9.4 Backland Development it is noted that it is stated that Backland development can cause a significant loss of amenity to existing properties including loss of privacy, overlooking noise disturbance and loss of mature vegetation or landscape screening. Accordingly I have assessed the issue of the proposed development in relation to the following:- PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 25
Density Issues: 10.2.2 As per section 17.4 Plot Ratio of the Dublin City Development Plan an indicative plot ratio of 0.5-2.0 is indicated and as per section 17.5 Site Coverage an indicative level of 45-60% is indicated. On the application form submitted it is indicated that the proposed development has a plot ratio of 0.19 and proposed site coverage of 17.6%. As such the proposed development does not exceed the aforementioned Development Plan Standards. 10.2.3 In relation to the existing dwelling, it is noted that the proposed development will also result in a revised site area, which in turn will increase the plot ratio and site coverage in relation to same. Furthermore upon site inspection I noted a separate detached unit in the rear garden of the existing dwelling, which also appears to have been converted to habitable use. This further increases the plot ratio and site coverage. The revised site area has not been measured by the applicant. However I am concerned that such a decrease in site size for the existing dwelling house may have negative residential amenity impacts, particularly in terms of reduced private amenity area, as outlined accordingly. Private Amenity Space: 10.2.4 As per section 17.9 Standards for Residential Accommodation of the Dublin City Development Plan in relation to private open space a standard of 15 sq.m. of private open space per bed space is normally applied. Upon examination of the proposed development, it is noted that the proposed dwelling is a three bed unit which results in 6 no. bed spaces, thereby resulting in a requirement for the provision of 90 sq.m. No measurements of the private amenity area have been provided. However upon my examination of the drawings submitted I have calculated that the private open space amenity requirement has been met in the case of the proposed dwelling. 10.2.5 In relation to the existing dwelling, same is a five bed unit, and therefore 150 sq.m. of private open space is required as per the Development Plan. Furthermore upon site inspection I also note that a separate detached unit in the rear garden of the existing dwelling appears to have been converted to habitable use. From a search of the planning register this does not appear to be authorised. This further increase in residential use on the site further increases the need for private amenity space within the curtilage of the existing dwelling. The private amenity space to remain within the curtilage of the existing dwelling unit has not been measured by the applicant. However on the basis of my measurements and calculations there did not appear to be sufficient private open space provided to meet Development Plan requirements. Such a reduction in private amenity space would have a negative residential amenity impact for the existing residents. I consider however that this issue can be overcome by amending the site boundary so that the common site boundary between the existing and new dwelling on the overall landholding is set back approximately 3.6 metres in line with PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 25
that of the existing established rear site boundary line of no. 354. Accordingly this will also necessitate the proposed entrance to be relocated 3.6 metres further to the east along the new proposed boundary wall. However I do not consider that such relocation should result in any knock on negative impact. Overlooking: 10.2.6 As per section 17.9 Standards for Residential Accommodation of the Dublin City Development Plan it is stated that at the rear of dwellings, there should be adequate separation (traditionally about 22m between 2-streoy dwellings) between opposing first floor windows. However, this standard may be relaxed if it can be clearly demonstrated that the development is designed in such a way as to preserve the amenities and privacy of adjacent occupiers. Careful positioning and detailed design of opposing windows can prevent overlooking with shorter backto-back distances and windows serving halls and landings do not require the same level of privacy as habitable rooms. 10.2.7 It is noted that in relation to the initial proposal the Planning Authority had concerns in relation to the potential for overlooking from first floor windows on the northeast and southwest elevations. Subsequently further information was submitted in the form of revised drawings indicating the removal of the window in bedroom no. 2 facing out onto the laneway, and the addition of a new timber clad bow window to the other side of the room, with a glazed window looking northwest as per the window in the master bedroom. It was indicated that the glazing would be opaque to both sides and that a timber panel screen would be introduced to the front of the glazing. 10.2.8 Upon my examination of the additional information drawings submitted to the Planning Authority on 10/6/14, I note that there are indeed first floor windows located opposing neighbouring properties. In the case of the first floor windows on both the southwest and the northeast elevations, while large windows are proposed, these are to be fitted with opaque glazing and or with a timber screen. Upon examination of the floor plans I note that said windows are serving a void area in which a stairwell is located. The function of same is therefore considered to be in order to obtain light into the building. I consider that it is satisfactory that same would be fitted with opaque glazing as this would mitigate potential overlooking of adjacent properties by users of the stairwell. I also consider that as this area is not a habitable room, that the use of such opaque glass is acceptable. 10.2.9 In relation to the southeast elevation, it is noted that at first floor level there are extensive windows. However it is noted that same are serving the void area lit by other windows on the first floor southwest and northeast elevation. As there is a greater distance to the relevant site boundary (8.234 m), and as this is lighting a void area I consider that same is acceptable. In terms of the northwest elevation, this is directly addressing the existing dwelling house of which the site was originally PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 25
part of. At first floor level on the northwest elevation there are a number of extensive windows proposed at first floor level. One of these windows is addressing the void area lit by other windows and is considered satisfactory. However it is noted that 2 no. windows are serving bedrooms. Of these the window serving the master bedroom is set back from the front wall of the proposed dwelling and is located approximately 21 metres from the new site boundary with the existing dwelling, and approximately 32 metres from the first floor opposing windows on the existing dwelling. In the case of the first floor window serving bedroom no. 2 this distance is further increased due to the further setback from the relevant boundary. As such I consider that the proposed development is acceptable in this regard. While I note that the revised drawings indicate that the various windows which will be fitted with opaque glazing and/or with a timber screen as same, as I consider that both measures should be used as mitigation measures, in the interests of clarity I consider that the inclusion of both measures should be specified by way of condition. 10.2.10Also upon examination of the drawings submitted, I note that a flat roof is indicated in a number of areas along a number of elevations with setback areas. While this is not indicated as a balcony area and access to same is not indicated in the drawings submitted, I consider that in order to control the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, that such a use should be omitted by way of condition. Sunlight and Overshadowing and Overbearance and Public Lighting: 10.2.11No sunlight or shadow analysis drawings have been submitted. However I consider that taking account of the separation distances proposed, the scale of the development which has a parapet level of only 6.3 metres, combined with its stepped back design that this sufficiently lessens its impact in terms of loss of sunlight, overshadowing and overbearance. Accordingly I consider that the proposed development is acceptable in this regard. I consider that potential impacts in relation to the location of street lighting along the laneway could be mitigated by way of condition of such details to be agreed with the Planning Authority. 3. Visual Impact 10.3.1 As per section 11.4.2 Sustainable Residential Areas of the Development Plan it is stated that varied housing typologies will be sought within neighbourhoods in order to encourage a diverse choice of housing options in terms of tenure, unit size, building design. Also as per section 11.4.7 Houses it is stated that it is important to provide a good mix of house types and sizes. As per Policy QH19 it is stated that it is the policy of Dublin City Council to ensure that new housing development close to existing houses reflect the character and scale of the existing houses unless there are exceptional design reasons for doing otherwise. As per section 17.1.1 Design it is stated that Dublin PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 25
City Council will ensure that all new developments enrich the urban qualities of the city with means encouraging a distinctive response which complements the setting. 10.3.2 The proposed development is a two-storey contemporary dwelling house with a parapet level of 6.3 metres. The site occupies a backland location and is not visible from the public road. While there is a single storey dwelling present on the adjoining site at no. 15A Hazelbrook Road, the remaining dwellings in the area are two-storey in nature. As such I consider that the scale of the proposed dwelling, with a parapet level of 6.3 metres is acceptable. Taking account the backland location and limited visual impact, I also consider that the opportunity exists to construct a contemporary dwelling as is currently the case. I consider that the backland location is such that it facilitates this, as a standalone development, and that it is in a location whereby it is will not visually detract from the character of the area. I also note the extensive tree planting along the southern site boundary which will aid in visual screening. Accordingly from a visual perspective I consider that the proposed dwelling is satisfactory. 10.3.3 In relation to the finishes and materials proposed, a render finish is indicated, with some limited select stone finish and timber cladding. I consider that visually the finishes and materials proposed are acceptable. However I consider that should same not be to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that should the Board be mindful to grant permission for the proposed development that same could be further addressed by way of condition. 4. Traffic Safety Issues 10.4.1 Vehicular access to the proposed dwelling is via the existing laneway to the side and rear of no. 352 Kimmage Road Lower. The existing laneway is grassed and permits access to the rear of a number of residential properties. It is capable only of accommodating one-way traffic. Kimmage Road Lower is a very busy road with direct access onto an existing cycleway and in proximity to a quality bus corridor and bus stop. In the Roads Traffic Planning Division of the Local Authority it is stated that the laneway varies in width from 3.5m, at its junction with Kimmage Road Lower to 2.5m. It is proposed to increase the width of the laneway to between 3.5m and 5m. The laneway also provides access to the rear of 10-15 Riversdale Grove. It is noted that there are a number of objections on file regarding the use of the laneway by the applicant. As the proposed development is for 1 no. dwelling only and it is proposed to increase the width of the laneway there is no objection. The proposed development was considered satisfactory to the Roads Traffic Planning Division of the Local Authority subject to a number of recommended conditions. PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 25
10.4.2 I note that there is an existing entrance at this location from the laneway which serves as a rear access point to the rear of a number of residential properties. Said right of way which is in grass, on the appearance of its condition, appears to be only lightly trafficked either by pedestrians or limited vehicles on only an intermittent basis. However I nonetheless accept that it is an established and existing entrance. Upon my site inspection I considered that sightlines were acceptable. Furthermore I note that as well as the entrance being existing, that it is located alongside that of the existing dwelling house. As such I consider that the pairing of the entrances aids in reducing traffic safety concerns. Furthermore I consider that the amount of traffic which would use the individual access and associated laneway would only be an addition of 1 no. dwelling, which I do not consider excessive. While I note that the lane is at its entrance point limited to 3.578 metres, I also note that it is proposed to widen same as part of the proposal to 5 metres further down. I consider that this is acceptable as an increase in the width of the lane at the narrower end would warrant demolition works to the existing dwelling on the site, which in my opinion is unwarranted taking account of the low level of traffic anticipated to serve the proposed development. I also note that as it is proposed to widen the lane further on it thereby allows any oncoming traffic to view any conflicting situations in terms of traffic movement and pull in. Furthermore I consider that a condition could be attached that part of the front garden of the existing house be reserved as part of the laneway in order to allow for two cars to sit side by side at the public side of the gate. Conflicting movements involving cars reversing onto the pubic road could thereby be avoided. I also consider that the level of traffic to be generated by the proposed dwelling is not of an amount to warrant provision of a footpath along the laneway. I therefore consider that the proposed development is acceptable in this regard. 10.4.3 In relation to concerns in relation to access by emergency vehicles, I note that the distance from the gateway at the top of the entrance to the proposed individual access to the proposed dwelling is only approximately 23 metres long. As such I consider that it is sufficiently accessible in the case of emergency. I also note that both the Board and the local authority in their previous consideration of developments on the site did not consider access by emergency vehicles to be a concern. Also in relation to access for fire safety purposes, I consider that this is a matter for the Fire Authority and note that in the city were lanes are closed by gates, the Fire Officer would normally have access keys. As such I consider that same is not a concern in this case. 5. Property and Right of Way Issues 10.5.1 In relation to the access laneway and the associated right of way to the rear of a number of properties, I note that there are concerns. By way of further information the applicant was requested to submit documentation indicating legal interest in the lands of the access laneway. It was also PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 25
requested that the applicant submit details of any works proposed to the existing gateway entrance to the access laneway. Subsequently further information was submitted with a letter from the applicant s Solicitor along with a copy of the associated deed map. This letter stated that the applicant is the registered owner of the property at no. 352 Lower Kimmage Road and that there is a right of way coloured yellow on the said map but said right of way is included in the lands owned by the applicant. Said Right of way is indicated to be 10 foot wide and 234 feet and 6 inches long. As part of the appeal submission, the appellant has submitted a register of deeds in relation to a right of way which stated that at all times and for all purposes over a passage of the width of ten feet leading from the Kimmage Road with the full right and liberty in common with all other parties entitled thereto to use the lane or passage leading to the rear of the said premises and shown the map. However it is also noted that no such map was included with the appellant s appeal submission. On the basis of the aforementioned I consider that it is reasonable to assume that the Right of Way pertains to both the applicants and a number of other parties to gain rear access to their properties. 10.5.2 As per section 17.9.4 Backland Development of the Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017, it is stated in relation to backland development that by blocking access, it can constitute piecemeal development and inhibit the development of a larger backland area. However I do not consider that this is the case in the subject proposal. As per the planning history pertaining to the site, it is noted that as per PL 29S. 221176 (3011/06), permission was refused by An Bord Pleanala for a dwelling accessed via the existing laneway. Among the reasons for refusal by the Board was the intrusion into the existing lane, from which lane houses on Riversdale Grove currently enjoy access. The dwelling then proposed was to be located on part of the designated Right of Way, and as such was infringing upon same. However in the subject proposal, this is not the case, with the proposed dwelling located adjoining but nonetheless outside of the designated Right of Way. 10.5.3 However a number of site works are proposed which will affect the Right of Way. It is indicated by the applicant that they are willing to enhance the entrance with a new set of electric gates and will provide key fobs to all parties that have access/right of way over the laneway and will also pave the laneway and provide suitable lighting. However the appellant s consider that as the existing laneway is a Right of Way, that permission and consultation with them in relation to any works or development affecting said laneway should be obtained. Concerns have also been raised by the appellants in relation to their ability to gain access to the laneway. Upon site inspection I noted that the laneway was closed off to the general public by a large solid steel door which has locked. As such access is currently restricted. I consider that the introduction of a FOB or alternative type security access system would be adequate as it would allow authorised persons assess to the laneway when and if required, while also providing an element of security. I consider that PL29S. 243675 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 25