Concern over works on O’Driscoll-Huberman home

Neighbours of Brian O'Driscoll and Amy Huberman have asked An Bord Pleanála to refuse planning permission for the proposed redevelopment of the Dublin home of the former rugby international and actor.

The couple are seeking to renovate the €1.8 million property on Palmerston Road in Rathmines. However, Donald and Isabel Fitzmaurice, who live next door, have lodged an appeal to the planning authority following Dublin City Council's decision to approve the project.

The appeal, made on behalf of the Fitzmaurices by Brian O’Donnell, director of Coda Architects, states that the scale of the proposed development “will have an adverse impact on the character and amenity” of the Fitzmaurices’ home.

O’Driscoll and Huberman are seeking to erect a three-storey rear extension which would replace an existing “non-original” two-storey extension. They also want to build a single-storey extension to the side and rear of the house.

Water-quality tests at Kilkee beach due to fears over bacteria

---

A ‘most revolting’ case of illegal waste in Co Donegal

---

Diesel tax may be increased in Budget 2018

---

On the equiangular spiral and how the narwhal got its horn

---

The Fitzmaurices live in the adjoining semi-detached house and Mr O’Donnell said their property was particularly vulnerable to excessive development on the O’Driscoll/Huberman site. He said “each metre that the proposed development is higher or longer immediately curtails the light and amenity of the east-facing open space” of the Fitzmaurice property.

Back garden

The Fitzmaurices are concerned about the impact the plans will have on their back garden as it would add considerably to the over-shadowing of the rear of their home. This would be particularly troubling in the mid-morning and early afternoon which Mr O’Donnell described as “prime hours for daylight and sunlight”.

Mr O’Donnell also takes issue with a statement by planning consultants for O’Driscoll and Huberman which states that the Fitzmaurices were consulted throughout the design stages “and are satisfied that appropriate measures have been taken to ensure that the proposal will not result in the dis-amenity to their property”.

In the appeal, Mr O’Donnell states: “We would like to correct this statement. Whilst some consultation did take place, the applicants in the end declined to amend their scheme to accommodate the concerns of my clients in relation to the extent of the proposed development.”

He adds: “We submit that the height, deputy and scale of the proposed rear extensions, particularly when taken in context of being the southern entity of a pair of protected structures originally designed as a cohesive entity, is a contravention of the city development plan.”

A council planner, while noting the Fitzmaurices’ concerns, last month gave O’Driscoll and Huberman the go-ahead after concluding that the proposal “would not seriously injure the amenities of the area, would not adversely affect the character and setting of the protected structure”.

The council’s conservation department said that returning the building for use as a single family residence would be of significant benefit for both the building and the streetscape.

A decision on the appeal is due in November.