First floor extension to home in Limerick may need to be demolished
Owner of property failed to secure permission to develop on land
THE OWNER of a house in the city centre is facing the prospect of having to demolish a first floor extension.
It comes after he failed to secure planning permission for the development in Limerick’s Georgian Quarter.
The homeowner had an 18-square metre extension built over an existing toilet and his rear yard.
It serves as a bedroom, and, the man says, is currently being rented to Limerick City and County Council, who are housing tenants on the Housing Assistance Payment scheme there.
In spite of this, council planners contacted the owner of the home requesting he seek retention permission for the development.
This is something which is sought when building has taken place without the proper permissions in place.
The homeowner acquiesced to the council’s request.
But his planning application to retain the first-floor extension was refused last November.
Council said: “It is considered the development would result in over-development of the site and give rise to a substandard level of residential amenity for the occupants of the dwelling.”
Local planners also said it would depreciate the value of other properties in the area.
However, the homeowner decided to appeal this ruling to An Bord Pleanala, the national planning appeals body.
In his appeal, he pointed out that the extension overlooks a laneway which is known for anti-social behaviour.
This, he argued, allows for “passive surveillance”.
“The extension is not considered to be overdevelopment. The extension is at first floor level only, is approximately 18 square metres and is not higher than the existing houses,” a summary of the appeal adds. He also made the point that council tenants are currently using the property and it “meets all rental requirements”.
Despite this, An Bord Pleanala agreed with their inspector’s recommendation to reject the application to keep the extension.
They wrote: “It is considered that development would be an incongruous and visually obtrusive addition, would result in overdevelopment of the site and would give rise to an unsatisfactory standard of residential amenity for future and existing occupants of the house by reason of inadequate provision good quality open space.”
It looks likely following this ruling, the homeowner will have to remove the extension - although an option remains to appeal the decision to the High Court.