Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommends omitting Condition 2(a) on the basis that the existing cement render is a non-historic, 20th-century addition rather than the original lime render, and its painting will not negatively impact the special character or physical integrity of the Protected Structure.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- Technical analysis confirmed that the existing exterior render is a non-original cement mix of varying ages rather than the original lime-based finish.
- Painting non-historic render is considered acceptable under national heritage guidelines where it does not harm the original building fabric or substrate.
- Restricting the painting of these surfaces is unreasonable given the established eclectic mix of painted and unpainted finishes on Corrig Avenue and the lack of heritage value in the current cement finish.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Policy Objective HER8Policy Objective HER11Land Use Zoning 'A'Section 8.4.20 of the Architectural Heritage Protection GuidelinesSection 8.4.21 of the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines
Decision Document Summary
The application involves the extensive repair, restoration, and painting of No. 1 Corrig Avenue, a Victorian-style Protected Structure in Dún Laoghaire. While the Planning Authority granted permission, they attached Condition 2(a) which prohibited the painting of the façades to maintain an unpainted render finish. The applicant appealed this specific condition, providing a specialist Mortar Report which proved that the current render is a later 20th-century cement intervention, not the original ...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.
Search for case on ABP