Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector recommended the removal of Condition No. 2, finding that a 5-year temporary permission was unjustified given the site's long-established pre-1963 advertising status and the significant 'planning gain' achieved by reducing the total number of advertising panels from three to one.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The reduction from three static advertising panels to one digital display represents a significant planning gain that benefits the occupants of neighbouring residential units.
- Condition No. 2 is unreasonable as it requires the land to be returned to its 'former state' after 5 years, which would perversely imply reinstating the three decommissioned panels.
- The Dublin City Development Plan does not require time-limited consents for established advertising stations of this nature, and the Planning Authority provided no clear justification for the 5-year restriction.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028Z1 Sustainable Residential Neighbourhoods zoningChapter 14 Section 14.5 (Non-conforming uses)Policy CCUV45: Advertising StructuresAppendix 17: Advertising and Signage StrategyDevelopment Management Guidelines 2007 (Section 7.3)
Decision Document Summary
This report assesses a first-party appeal against a condition limiting permission to five years for the replacement of three illuminated static advertising displays with a single digital display at the junction of Macken Street and Grand Canal Street Lower, Dublin 2. While the site is zoned Z1 (Residential), it has functioned as an advertising station since the 1920s with pre-1963 status. The Planning Authority acknowledged that reducing the signage density by 66% was a significant planning bene...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