2241

Development consisting of retention of the following works: A. Two storey extension to rear comprising kitchen on ground floor and bathroom on first floor to two-storey dormer dwelling, internal re-modelling, amenity space, connection to existing services and associated works. B. Renovations and extensions to original two-storey derelict dwelling, internal remodelling, alterations to elevations, amenity spaces, connection to existing services and associated works. This property is a Listed Structure RPS 16.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The development was refused due to its detrimental impact on a protected structure and Architectural Conservation Area, combined with over-development of the site which resulted in substandard residential amenity and a lack of independent access.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The alterations to the protected structure, including changes to window openings and the removal of original wall finishes, are architecturally unsuitable and negatively impact the character of the Courthouse Architectural Conservation Area.
  • The proposed development constitutes over-development of a restricted site, failing to provide adequate private open space and violating minimum separation distances required to prevent overlooking and overshadowing between units.
  • The lack of independent access for the rear unit (21B) and the absence of adequate parking provision result in a substandard form of accommodation that would set an undesirable precedent for future development in the area.

Cited Policies (CDP)

GP-CC-1GP-CC-2GP-CC-3GP-CC-4GP-CC-5GP-CC-6GP-CC-7GP-CC-8GP-CC-9GP-CC-10GP-CC-11GP-CC-12GP-CC-13GP-CC-14P-ACA-CH-2P-ACA-CH-3P-ACA-CH-4P-ACA-CH-5P-ACA-CH-6P-ACA-CH-7P-BH-1P-BH-4P-BH-6Section 16.3.5

Decision Document Summary

The application sought retention and completion of works at 21 Chapel Street, Sligo, involving a two-storey rear extension and renovations to a listed two-storey dwelling (RPS 16SE) located within the Courthouse Architectural Conservation Area. Sligo County Council refused the proposal because the modifications to the original structure's fenestration and masonry finishes were deemed detrimental to its heritage status. Additionally, the project was considered an over-intensification of the site,...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.