3994/23
The proposed development consists of the replacement of the existing illuminated advertising sign (2.75m high by 4.15m wide) at second floor level facing Military Road, to a LED digital display sign (2.25m high by 4m wide) which will reduce the size from 11.45 sq.m. to 9sq.m, a reduction of 26%. The new sign will carry a series of alternating static advertisements (6 per minute). If granted, the permission would be on the basis of decommissioning, in line with the outdoor advertising policy of Dublin City Council, two no. outdoor 48 sheet advertising signs situated at the top floor gables at 361 Ballyfermot Rd, Cherry Orchard, Dublin 10 YN30 and 365 Ballyfermot Rd, Cherry Orchard, Dublin 10, D10 XN29
Core Refusal Reason
The proposed LED digital sign is considered excessive in scale, out of proportion with the host building, and visually obtrusive within the historic streetscape of Rathmines, negatively impacting the setting of nearby Protected Structures and the visual amenities of the area.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The scale and digital nature of the proposed sign are incongruous with the architectural character of the host building and the surrounding historic context of Rathmines Village.
- The applicant failed to demonstrate that the signs offered for decommissioning were authorised, thus the proposal does not provide a valid planning gain or satisfy requirements for the rationalisation of advertising.
- Granting permission would establish an undesirable precedent for similar digital advertising structures in proximity to Protected Structures and residential amenities.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The proposal involves replacing an existing unlit static advertising sign at 101 Rathmines Road Lower with a new LED digital display sign measuring 4m by 2.25m. The subject site is a prominent three-storey red brick corner property situated near several Protected Structures, including St. Mary’s College. The applicant sought to justify the development by offering to decommission two existing signs in Ballyfermot as a 'planning gain'. However, the Inspector noted that the status of these signs wa...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