WEB1828/22
New shopfront signage to comprise the following; 1 - Main facade signage to read ‘Dr. Martens’. Overall sign dimensions are 385mm high x 3000mm wide, sign area 1.155m². The sign is comprised of individual built-up metal lettering with an overall depth of 80mm. Front face of lettering is white acrylic with a metal surround and side with black powder coated paint finish. The sign is illuminated with integrated lighting. 2 - Signage board, mounted perpendicular to facade with Dr. Martens logo. Board dimensions are 600mm high x 600mm wide, area 0.36m². Signage board to be fabricated from aluminium with black powder coated paint finish. The sign is illuminated with integrated lighting.
Core Refusal Reason
The Inspector recommends a grant of permission subject to conditions, concluding that the fascia signage submitted in the original application (385mm height) is acceptable in principle, provided that the projecting signage is omitted and the stall risers are retained to protect the architectural character of the Grafton Street Architectural Conservation Area.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The fascia signage submitted with the original application (385mm high) is acceptable in principle as it is proportionate to the fascia board and consistent with the Shopfront Design Guide.
- The proposed illuminated projecting sign is inconsistent with design guidelines for Category 1 shopping streets and would set an undesirable precedent for facade clutter.
- The existing stall risers are a critical element of the shopfront's architectural integrity and must be retained rather than replaced with floor-to-ceiling glazing.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This report concerns a first-party appeal by Dr Martens AirWair (Ireland) Ltd against Dublin City Council's decision to refuse permission for new shopfront signage at 83 Grafton Street. The site is located within the Grafton Street Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) and is designated as a Category 1 Principal Shopping Street. The Planning Authority initially refused permission due to the adverse impact of unauthorized, oversized signage on the visual amenity of the area. During the appeal, th...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