WEB1252/25

PROTECTED STRUCTURE / RETENTION: 1. At 22 Baggot Street Upper a. The retention of the current upper floor configuration of a single dwelling with no. 5 bedrooms over three floors (previous planning granted for 3 no. residential units with extension to protected structure and construction of 3 storey building to the rear; ref. 3605/20). 2. Rear to 22 Baggot Street Upper a. The retention of the perimeter timber fence, 2.4m in height, constructed to the rear of the property to the northwest boundary with the neighbouring property, No. 20 Baggot Street Upper, and on the northeast boundary with Eastmoreland Lane (temporary permission previously granted, ref: 2164/21). b. The retention of the ancillary timber fence, 1.7m in height, screening bins to Eastmoreland Lane (temporary permission previously granted, ref: 2164/21).

Split decision

Core Reason for the Refused Part

The retention of timber fencing was refused because its design, height, and non-traditional materials are incompatible with the architectural character and heritage significance of the Protected Structure and its curtilage.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The timber fences fail to relate sensitively to the scale, proportions, and architectural detail of the original building and do not utilize traditional materials appropriate for a Protected Structure.
  • The development contravenes multiple heritage policies of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028, specifically regarding the protection of the special character of historic buildings and their curtilage.
  • Granting retention would set an undesirable precedent for inappropriate works to protected structures, causing serious injury to the amenities of the area and failing to accord with proper planning and sustainable development.

Cited Policies (CDP)

BHA2 (a)BHA2 (b)BHA2 (d)BHA2 (e)BHA2 (f)BHA9 1BHA9 2

Decision Document Summary

The application sought a split permission for the retention of a five-bedroom dwelling on the upper floors of 22 Baggot Street Upper, a Protected Structure, and the retention of 2.4m and 1.7m high timber fencing at the rear and side boundaries. While the residential configuration was granted permission, the local authority refused the retention of the fencing. The refusal was based on the fences' failure to complement the historic character of the site, citing that the height, siting, and timber...
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.