Irish arm of Dr Martens contesting Grafton Street shopfront planning refusal

The Irish arm Dr Martens is contesting Dublin City Council’s planning refusal for its shopfront on its flagship Grafton Street outlet.

Dr Martens AirWair (Ireland) Ltd lodged an appeal to An Bord Pleanála against the planning refusal issued by the council last month against the shopfront application.

The council told Dr Martens that its new “unauthorised” shopfront at 89 Grafton Street would have a serious adverse impact on the architectural fabric of the area.

In refusing planning permission, the council concluded that the shopfront would result in an undesirable precedent for similar type development and depreciate the value of property in the vicinity.

Bonds are back: but should you invest?

---

CRH puts its hands up over shortcomings on investor dividends

---

Will inheritance cause a problem with my weekly disability payment?

---

High rollers face pension squeeze

---

The firm lodged its planning application last September but the council planner’s report noted that the unauthorised ‘Dr Martens’ signage was already in place and was oversized and excessive in scale for the site.

The council stated that the unauthorised works “have had a significant impact on the presentation of the front elevation of this building, the surrounding environment and has an adverse impact on the visual amenity afforded along Grafton Street”.

The appeal lodged by SBA Architects states that “both the main sign and the projecting sign includes labels to indicate that the signs are temporary until planning permission is granted”.

The appeal states that the council claim that the shopfront would have a serious adverse and injurious impact on the surrounding environment “is not supported”.

The appeal contends that “the shopfront in question is a simple, elegant design depicting the familiar logo of this popular brand”.

On behalf of SBA Architects, Gerard O’Meara further states that “the store is proving very popular with members of the public and the applicant reports that the store is trading well”.

Mr O’Meara contends that the council decision was “not justified” and the local authority had “taken an overly negative view of the development”.

He states that similar type shopfronts are already in place in the area and “there is nothing to suggest these shopfronts have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity or value of property in the vicinity”.

He states that “the form and design of the signage is well suited to the existing modern shopfront design”.

He states that the applicant intends to remove “the existing projecting sign”.

A decision is due on the appeal later in the year.