Tipperary homeowner refused retention permission for unauthorised extension built in 2014
A Tipperary homeowner may have to demolish an extension on their home after the local authority refused permission for its retention.
Ruben Coppens applied to Tipperary County Council for retention planning permission to keep a two-storey extension on his home in Aherlow Court in Tipperary town.
Retention planning permission is sought when a person has carried out development works without getting planning permission first.
Mr Coppens’ extension holds a family room on the ground floor and storage space on the first floor, and was built in 2014 without planning permission.
The two-storey extension was built to replace a single-storey extension, which was built in 1999, but no planning permission to demolish the old extension or add the new one was sought.
The planner’s report states that Tipperary County Council took enforcement action previously in relation to the extension, but closed the case in 2023 because the development had happened too long ago for enforcement action to be taken.
The council planner said in their report that having examined all the documents on file, as well as a site visit, they could not agree that the extension blended well into its surroundings.
“Given the overall scale of the extension, I am not satisfied that the extension suitably integrates into the site or does not detract from the residential amenities of the surrounding area,” they said.
“I consider the extension to be an incongruous feature on the rear elevation of the dwelling,” they added.
They also raised concerns about the potential for overshadowing to the property at the north of the site, and requested further information from the applicant to show the overshadowing effects of the extension.
“It is considered that the extension for which retention permission is sought has a significant negative impact on the adjoining property by reason of overshadowing,” the council planner said.
“Taken together with the concerns expressed in the initial report in relation to design and overbearing impact, it is considered that the proposal will have a negative impact on the visual amenity of the area and the amenities of the adjoining property by reason of overshadowing and overbearing,” they added.
In their reasons for refusing permission, the council said that the development “is not considered to be subordinate to the main dwelling ... and results in an overly large, visually dominant and incongruous extension to the rear of the existing dwelling.”
They said if the extension was allowed, it would set an “undesirable precedent,” and would be contrary to proper planning.