Core Refusal Reason
The proposal was refused due to its detrimental impact on the Architectural Conservation Area and adjacent protected structure, poor urban design inconsistent with the streetscape, and failure to meet minimum residential amenity standards, representing over-development of a constrained site.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The development fails to respect the character and integrity of the Architectural Conservation Area and the setting of the adjacent protected structure (RPS ID 1354).
- The proposed design, specifically regarding height and fenestration, is inconsistent with the established urban pattern and simple proportions of Thomas Street.
- The proposal constitutes over-development of a constrained site, providing substandard residential amenity due to lack of storage, inadequate bedroom sizes, and no private open space.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Objective HE16-14 (f)Objective HE16-14 (h)Objective HE16-18 (a-b)Objective HE16-18 (j)Objective MH-GO-04Objective MH-GO-06
Decision Document Summary
The application sought permission to convert a derelict store on Thomas Street, Mitchelstown, into two residential units. The site is located within an Architectural Conservation Area and adjacent to a protected structure. The local authority refused the application because the design was deemed unsympathetic to the historic streetscape and failed to demonstrate an understanding of the town's planned character. Furthermore, the proposal was considered over-development, as it failed to meet basic...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.