An Bord Pleanála

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS 2000 TO 2013

South County

Planning Register Reference Number: 13/239

An Bord Pleanála Reference Number: PL 23.242594

APPEAL by Dolph McGrath and Michele Brannigan of Garden Cottage, Patrickswell, , against the decision made on the 25 th day of September, 2013 by South to grant subject to conditions a permission to Ivan and Fiona Barlow care of John Stewart and Associates of Harbour Village, Dunmore East, County Waterford.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: Construction of a two-storey house, double garage, entrance through the south wall of the garden, wastewater treatment system, percolation area and ancillary site works within the existing walled garden which is a Protected Structure (RPS number S1053) at Gortmore, Patrickswell, Patrickswell Cross, Marlfield, Clonmel, County Tipperary.

DECISION

REFUSE permission for the above proposed development based on the reasons and considerations set out below.

MATTERS CONSIDERED

In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.

______

PL 23.242594 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 3

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

1. The subject site is a walled garden and a protected structure, listed in the South Tipperary County Development Plan 2009 – 2015. The walled garden holds a further protected structure, the Garden Cottage, also listed for protection in the said Plan. Both structures are identified in the National Inventory of Architectural heritage as being of architectural interest and of regional importance. Having regard to its excessive scale, bulk and height, its proportions, and its prominent and exposed location in the centre of the walled garden, it is considered that the proposed development would seriously detract from its surroundings, and would materially and adversely affect the character and setting of the two protected structures. Furthermore, the over-elaborate design of the proposed house would exhibit an incongruous complexity of form, and ornate decorative features, that would undermine the simple utility of the protected structures and of the walled garden in particular. The proposed development would, therefore, contravene the provisions of the “Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities” issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2004, and Policy AEH 11, which seeks to protect and conserve protected structures, as set out in the South Tipperary County Development Plan 2009-2015, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. Having regard to the original construction detail, materials and simplicity of form of the walled garden, and to the proposal to remove an excessive element of the fabric of the wall from its most prominent frontage, and to the proposed insertion of a set back entrance splay incorporating curved wing walls, gate piers of rough uncoursed stone with dressed stone detail, and decorative gates, which, by reason of the proposed location, design, materials, layout and unnecessary removal of fabric, would be out-of-keeping with and would seriously detract from the character of the original wall and that of its original entrance, it is considered that the proposed development would materially and adversely affect the character and visual coherence of this protected structure, would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

______

PL 23.242594 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 3

In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation to grant permission, the Board considered that the design, bulk, scale and height of the proposed house would be visually dominant in relation to the protected structures, that the central location of the proposed development would be prominent and exposed, that the over-elaborate design would be visually incongruous and that the proposed development would fail to respect the design, proportions, materials, character or setting of the protected structures at the subject site, and of the walled garden in particular. The positive relationship between the Garden House and the walled garden is noted in this regard. Furthermore, the Board did not accept that the nature, design or scale of the proposed intervention in the original fabric of the walled garden, on its most prominent frontage, was either appropriate or necessary.

Member of An Bord Pleanála duly authorised to authenticate the seal of the Board.

Dated this day of 2014.

______

PL 23.242594 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 3