Planning case 261662

The council’s formal grounds for this decision. Planner assessment and later appeal outcomes are separate.

1. It is considered that the proposed development type has not been adequately justified in the context of the protected structure to the rear of and adjoining the site (RPS ID 1354), and in the context of the Architectural Conservation Area. The non -sympathetic alteration of the streetscape and the removal of features that contribute to the character and integrity of the ACA and would result in an inappropriate development design which would actively detract from the character of the Architectural Conservatio n Area. The proposed development does not demonstrate an understanding of the setting in the context of Mitchelstown as one of the county’s most intact planned towns; nor of the protection status through the use of conservation professional/s. The proposed development would be contrary to the Objective HE16 -14 (f) and (h) and HE16 -18 (a -b) and (j) in the Cork County Development Plan 2022 and to Architectural Heritage Protection, Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environmen t, Heritage and Local Government in December 2004, in relation to development within the setting of protected structures and in Architectural Conservation Areas and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development would provide for a residential unit which would not have the benefit of dedicated private amenity space, insufficient internal storage space and no external storage or other storage provision which may be required for bins and/or bicycles. Furthermore, the floor area of bedroom 2 does not meet the 7.1 sq m minimum floor area for a single bedroom as required by the Quality Housing for Sustainable Communities 2007 Ministerial Guidelines. In addition, the height of the proposal is considered to be excessive and may detract from the residential amenity of adjoining and adjacent structures by way of overbearing and potential loss of light. Accordingly, the development would constitute a substandard and unacceptable form of residential accommodation which would be incapable of providing an adequate level of residential amenity for future occupants as well as actively detracting from the established residential amenity of adjacent and adjoining properties. It is also considered that the proposed development may set an undesirable precedent for similar types of substandard development in the area and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. As such, it is concluded that the proposed development represents the over-development of a restrictive and physically constrained urban site which would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The design of the proposed development is inconsistent with the established pattern of development and associated character of Thomas Street. Consequently, it is considered that the proposed development does not accord with the principles of good urban design and will actively detract from the character of Thomas Street. In particular, the height of the proposed town house and the pattern of fenestration is at odds with the simple proportions of Thomas Street. As such, the proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions of Objective MH -GO-04 and Objective MH -GO-06 and therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2, 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 0446be19b125cc5c29e145cd4ae15421852cf3e143040956706c26e941b7432b