The work of E. W. Pugin

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Sirius » Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:00 pm

Gianlorenzo wrote:Does anyone know exactly what is planned for Monkstown parish church. Sirius mentioned permission to re-order the church, but failed to answer my question as to what exactly was permitted.


For the education of Gianlorenzo:

The following works for the reordering of the Church of St. Mary and the Sacred Heart in Monkstown were approved by the Conservation Officer:
The placement of the pulpit into the chancel area,
The erection of a platform to bring the altar table out into the crossing
The rearrangement and/or permanent removal of some pews
The removal of two confessional boxes
The relocation of the baptismal font
The relocation of part of the original reredos back from the existing altar table
The erection of tapestries
The blocking up of an existing door ope

The following works were not approved and were excluded by planning condition:
The removal of the existing altar and statue in the Lady Chapel

There was no submission from An Taisce
There were no submissions from the general public
There was no request for further information
The decision to permit was made within 8 weeks of the submission of the application

Here endeth the lesson
Sirius
Member
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:15 am
Location: Cork

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby PVC King » Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:34 pm

Sirius wrote:There was no submission from An Taisce
There were no submissions from the general public
There was no request for further information


This entirely proves just how off the beam the proposal for Cobh was; An Taisce do not object to proposals in places of worship lightly. In fact in my experience An Taisce spend much of their time protecting the setting of many Cathedrals and Churches around Ireland by making submissions on large developments on neighbouring sites that could if completed compromise these buildings place in the architectural hierarchy.
PVC King
 

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Praxiteles » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:13 pm

I have not jet seen Monkston, but the description provided for Ganlorenzo is sufficient to allows us to form the opinion that another disaster has been brought about by a group of people who know nothing about the liturgy and consiedrably less about the Irish neo-gothic movement. Clearly, the oeuvre of Pugin is currentlly in the hands of hay-barn builders whose mentors rise to nothing more than chip-shops. Just how and why has Ireland become so culturally (and religiously) detached? The likes of those involved in Monkstown show all the sympthoms of the post-colonial trauma that we usually associate with the farthest reaches of the Limpopo. 50 years ago, D Guinness started to try to do something to conserve the remnant of a certain aspect of 18th century Ireland. To-day, the Monsktown paddies are busily dismantling precisely what gave (and gives) them the only form of social identity available to such a reprehensible class. Keep A. White at the other side of the Lee, please.
Praxiteles
Old Master
 
Posts: 6060
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:02 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Praxiteles » Fri Jun 30, 2006 11:23 pm

Sirius wrote:For the education of Gianlorenzo:

The following works for the reordering of the Church of St. Mary and the Sacred Heart in Monkstown were approved by the Conservation Officer:
The placement of the pulpit into the chancel area,
The erection of a platform to bring the altar table out into the crossing
The rearrangement and/or permanent removal of some pews
The removal of two confessional boxes
The relocation of the baptismal font
The relocation of part of the original reredos back from the existing altar table
The erection of tapestries
The blocking up of an existing door ope

The following works were not approved and were excluded by planning condition:
The removal of the existing altar and statue in the Lady Chapel

There was no submission from An Taisce
There were no submissions from the general public
There was no request for further information
The decision to permit was made within 8 weeks of the submission of the application

Here endeth the lesson



1. Who ever heard of a pulpit in a chancel? Their purpose is for preaching and of necessity must be located where people can hear what is said. In the great French churches you will encounter a tribune opposite the pulpit to seat the clergy who come in procession FROM the chancel to hear what is preached. But I suppose that no one in Monkstown will ever have heard of Bossuet, Bourdalou, Fenelon, Nicholas McCarthy, or for that matter Abraham a Santa Clara.

2. Another crossing fiasco! This has nothing to do with liturgy and nothing to do with architecture.

3. The permanent removal of pews. Here we are back to the same old pea banking off the same old pot. In Cobh the pews were moved into the Lady Chapel where they are breaking Oppenheimer's mosaic floor. Has the Conservation officer seen that, and if so, what is being done about it?

4. Am I to take it that the removal of two confessionals in Monkstown means that it is now a zone free of the effects of Original Sin or are the clergy just too lazy to hear confessions?

5. The only reasonable place for a relocated baptismal font is in a baptistery outside of the church. Otherwise, are we to take it that there has been an outbreak of dipping in MOnkstown?

6. I do not understand the idea of relocation part of the reredos back from the mensa. Did we not just move the mensa away from the reredos earlier on; It sounds like total destruction. Please Mr. White, do Mr White go back to building chip shops and holiday chalets.

7. The erection of tapesteries: the usual unimaginative solution to atempt covering over the visual holes created by the destruction of the central feature of a neo gothic church: the altar. Just look at them in Longford, The Pro-Cathedral etc, etc, sine fine dicentes.

The entire project sounds like having arrived at a level of imagination and artistic creativity that EVEN manages to surpass the great Professor O'Neill's efforts in CObh. It just goes to show you what the country boys can come up with when they take a japenese type inspiration from their cosmopolitan betters.
Praxiteles
Old Master
 
Posts: 6060
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:02 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Gianlorenzo » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:45 pm

Sirius wrote:For the education of Gianlorenzo:

The following works for the reordering of the Church of St. Mary and the Sacred Heart in Monkstown were approved by the Conservation Officer:
The placement of the pulpit into the chancel area,
The erection of a platform to bring the altar table out into the crossing
The rearrangement and/or permanent removal of some pews
The removal of two confessional boxes
The relocation of the baptismal font
The relocation of part of the original reredos back from the existing altar table
The erection of tapestries
The blocking up of an existing door ope

The following works were not approved and were excluded by planning condition:
The removal of the existing altar and statue in the Lady Chapel

There was no submission from An Taisce
There were no submissions from the general public
There was no request for further information
The decision to permit was made within 8 weeks of the submission of the application

Here endeth the lesson


Thank you so much for the 'lesson'.

Would I be safe in assuming that the above re-ordering of the Sanctuary and Nave in Monkstown was presented to the parishioners and planning authorities as "liturgically required"?
If so, then I am not surprised that the people did not object as, in the main, this particular lie has been convincing congregations all over the English speaking world for some time. And make no mistake, it is a lie. I would have much greater respect for the wreckers if they just once spoke the truth,and admitted that these changes are something they desire and that they are not 'required', as such by the Universay Catholic Church.

What is very interesting is what was not approved. I wonder how the removal of the altar and statue in the Lady Chapel could be justified liturgically and why would anyone want to do it? Would they then perhaps have changed the name from St. Mary and the Sacred Heart to simply Sacred Heart?

The answer, of course, is Iconoclasm.

An Iconoclast is:
1. One who attacks and seeks to overthrow traditional or popular ideas or institutions.
2. One who destroys sacred religious images.

The above perfectly describes those involved in much of the destruction to Irish churches in the last 20-30 years.
Their ideas are hopelessly out-dated, but unfortunately those who hold to them are currently in positions of power within the church and they are still able to destroy our heritage and convince people like Alex White et al. that what they are doing is necessary for Catholic liturgy.
Gianlorenzo
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:36 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Gianlorenzo » Wed Jul 05, 2006 12:32 am

Sirius, you have failed repeatedly to explain to us the liturgical requirements for the re-ordering of churches that you appear to support and you have also failed to correct my assumptions regarding Monkstown I can therefore take it that Pugin and Ashlin's little gem is Monkstown is due for complete interior destruction albeit that the exterior will be restored.
Gianlorenzo
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:36 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Sirius » Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:02 am

Gianlorenzo wrote:Sirius, you have failed repeatedly to explain to us the liturgical requirements for the re-ordering of churches that you appear to support and you have also failed to correct my assumptions regarding Monkstown I can therefore take it that Pugin and Ashlin's little gem is Monkstown is due for complete interior destruction albeit that the exterior will be restored.


I support the right of all religious denominations to reorder their places of worship in accordance with their own beliefs. I believe it is a matter for each denomination to decide when to revise their liturgy and, once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community, they should be entitled to practice that revised liturgy within their places of worship. If the interior of a place of worship is “protected” it is reasonable that the wider community should ask the religious denomination to respect the architectural heritage in so far as this can be reconciled with the practice of the liturgy. However I do not consider it reasonable that a religious community should be compelled to subordinate their liturgical requirements to the architectural preferences of people who do not share their faith.

In the case of Cobh Cathedral, An Bord Pleanála accepted that the proposed reordering was based on liturgical requirements. However the Board decided that the proposed design was not the only way of meeting those liturgical requirements and that, as there appeared to be other options, the design submitted by the Trustees was probably not the best way of meeting those requirements. By framing the decision in this way the Board was effectively inviting the Trustees to submit a further application incorporating appropriate revisions to the design. I believe that anyone with experience of the planning process would support this interpretation of the “reasons and considerations” attached to the Board’s decision.

As I am not a member of that community I do not see why Gianlorenzo should expect me to justify the liturgical requirements of the Catholic parish of Monkstown. Would he expect me to explain the liturgical requirements of the mosque in Clonskeagh?

I am satisfied that Fr. Cotter has permission in accordance with the Planning Acts and Regulations. His architect set out in detail the extent of the reordering and the reasons therefore. These documents were available to the public. At a time when 24,000 were supposedly outraged about the reordering of Cobh Cathedral, not a single voice was raised against what appears to me to be a similar proposal for Monkstown parish church. I find that puzzling and the only explanation I can offer is that, while they are only a couple of miles apart, these two places of worship are located in different dioceses.
Sirius
Member
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:15 am
Location: Cork

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Gianlorenzo » Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:13 am

Sirius wrote:I support the right of all religious denominations to reorder their places of worship in accordance with their own beliefs. I believe it is a matter for each denomination to decide when to revise their liturgy and, once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community, they should be entitled to practice that revised liturgy within their places of worship.


I couldn't agree more, but the salient point is that for the Roman Catholic Church it is not in the remit of any individual to decide what is 'liturgically required' without recourse to the Holy See and/or the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. Individual bishops are guardians of the liturgy not the authors of liturgy.
Gianlorenzo
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:36 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby publicrealm » Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:10 pm

Sirius wrote: If the interior of a place of worship is “protected” it is reasonable that the wider community should ask the religious denomination to respect the architectural heritage in so far as this can be reconciled with the practice of the liturgy. However I do not consider it reasonable that a religious community should be compelled to subordinate their liturgical requirements to the architectural preferences of people who do not share their faith.


I have not posted to this thread before and have not read all the previous posts so apologies if I am repeating previous points - but I am intrigued by the above quote.

Might the same logic not be extended to encompass the more usual type of Protected Structure'?

For example is it reasonable to expect, say Dermot Desmond, to merely observe the law as far as can be reconciled with his particular needs?

He might believe in installing a dumb waiter in a PS for example - I would not share his 'belief 'but is his belief not akin to the 'liturgical preference' above?

(and what would happen to the (protected) decorative features of Catholic churches if the liturgical preferences chose to dispense with graven images/stained glass etc. and revert to a more fundamental style?)
publicrealm
Member
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:50 am
Location: D6

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Praxiteles » Thu Jul 06, 2006 4:37 pm

I am not sure what Sirius is saying by intimating taht he is not a member of "that community". He would need to clarify that, otherwise, I am not sure what his involvement in the wreckage of Monkstown is.
Praxiteles
Old Master
 
Posts: 6060
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:02 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Gianlorenzo » Thu Jul 06, 2006 6:38 pm

publicrealm wrote:I have not posted to this thread before and have not read all the previous posts so apologies if I am repeating previous points - but I am intrigued by the above quote.

Might the same logic not be extended to encompass the more usual type of Protected Structure'?

For example is it reasonable to expect, say Dermot Desmond, to merely observe the law as far as can be reconciled with his particular needs?

He might believe in installing a dumb waiter in a PS for example - I would not share his 'belief 'but is his belief not akin to the 'liturgical preference' above?

(and what would happen to the (protected) decorative features of Catholic churches if the liturgical preferences chose to dispense with graven images/stained glass etc. and revert to a more fundamental style?)


This is the point that was made by FOSCC and An Taisce at the Oral Hearing in Midleton.
If you take the stance that Church authorities can arbitrarily decide what is liturgically require. without reference to the norms of their own denomination, and that this must be 'respected' irregardless of any other criteria, then the Act itself becomes redundant in the area of the protection of significant ecclesiatical structures.
Gianlorenzo
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:36 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Sirius » Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:07 am

publicrealm wrote:I have not posted to this thread before and have not read all the previous posts so apologies if I am repeating previous points - but I am intrigued by the above quote.

Might the same logic not be extended to encompass the more usual type of Protected Structure'?

For example is it reasonable to expect, say Dermot Desmond, to merely observe the law as far as can be reconciled with his particular needs?

He might believe in installing a dumb waiter in a PS for example - I would not share his 'belief 'but is his belief not akin to the 'liturgical preference' above?

(and what would happen to the (protected) decorative features of Catholic churches if the liturgical preferences chose to dispense with graven images/stained glass etc. and revert to a more fundamental style?)


The difference is that freedom of worship is enshrined in the Constitution as is the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.
Sirius
Member
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:15 am
Location: Cork

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Gianlorenzo » Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:26 am

Sirius wrote:I support the right of all religious denominations to reorder their places of worship in accordance with their own beliefs. I believe it is a matter for each denomination to decide when to revise their liturgy and, once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community, they should be entitled to practice that revised liturgy within their places of worship. If the interior of a place of worship is “protected” it is reasonable that the wider community should ask the religious denomination to respect the architectural heritage in so far as this can be reconciled with the practice of the liturgy. However I do not consider it reasonable that a religious community should be compelled to subordinate their liturgical requirements to the architectural preferences of people who do not share their faith.



There you said it - once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community. That says it all. What was proposed in Cobh was not in accordance with the rules of the community, ie the Universal Catholic Church.
What constitutes a 'religious community'. Can it be possible that you think that a bishop - any bishop - along with a few of his clerical friends constitutes a religious community? Where does that leave the other 90% of people in Cobh in your reckoning?
Gianlorenzo
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:36 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Praxiteles » Fri Jul 07, 2006 3:58 pm

Sirius wrote:The difference is that freedom of worship is enshrined in the Constitution as is the right of religious denominations to manage their own affairs.


Sirius:

How can there be a transgression of the right to freedom of worship and freedom for religious denominations to organise their own affairs when the Cobh Cathedral project is NOT required by the liturgical law of the Catholic Church?

Introducing the question of religious freedom into the Cobh debate is a piece of eye-wash concocted by McCutcheon and Mulcahy in their report of last November to ABP when they simply could not come up with a convincing reply to the position advanced by the FOSCC. Clearly, McCutcheon and Mulcahy did not have the best Canonical advice available to them when they were baking in the pastery kitchen - if indeed they bothered to consult any canonist. That little oversight left them groping in the ark for they did not quite know what they were at.

Also, Sirius, keep in mind taht in the irish constitution the right to religious freedom and the right of religious denominations to organise their own affairs are not ABSOLUTE rights but CONDITIONAL rights subject to the demands of public order. It might not be such a good idea in the present climate to want to tease out the implications of that.
Praxiteles
Old Master
 
Posts: 6060
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:02 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Chuck E R Law » Sat Jul 08, 2006 9:04 am

Praxiteles wrote:Sirius:

Keep in mind taht in the irish constitution the right to religious freedom and the right of religious denominations to organise their own affairs are not ABSOLUTE rights but CONDITIONAL rights subject to the demands of public order. It might not be such a good idea in the present climate to want to tease out the implications of that.


So far the only public order issue would appear to be the threat to assassinate the bishop which was reported by THE_Chris in post #847. Is there more?
Chuck E R Law
Member
 
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 7:32 pm
Location: Belfast

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Bruges » Sat Jul 08, 2006 10:00 am

publicrealm wrote:I have not posted to this thread before and have not read all the previous posts so apologies if I am repeating previous points - but I am intrigued by the above quote.

Might the same logic not be extended to encompass the more usual type of Protected Structure'?

For example is it reasonable to expect, say Dermot Desmond, to merely observe the law as far as can be reconciled with his particular needs?

He might believe in installing a dumb waiter in a PS for example - I would not share his 'belief 'but is his belief not akin to the 'liturgical preference' above?

(and what would happen to the (protected) decorative features of Catholic churches if the liturgical preferences chose to dispense with graven images/stained glass etc. and revert to a more fundamental style?)


The Illium Properties case is more interesting than Cobh Cathedral as the conservation issues are not overlain by obscure and largely irrelevant liturgical arguments.

The Inspector's Report on PL 29S.131528 took the view that while the works were more charaeristic of a Palladian style villa rather than a Georgian period townhouse "they constitute an expression of individual aesthetic taste which, given the ‘private dwelling’ nature of this protected structure and the reversibility inherent in their application as decorative features, can reasonably be described as acceptable interventions"

This seems to imply that if the protected structure is your private dwelling you are entitled to modify the interior in accordance with your personal taste provided the works are reversible.
Bruges
Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Praxiteles » Sat Jul 08, 2006 4:36 pm

The only one who mentioned this case in relation to Cobh Cathedral was McCutcheon and Mulcahy. Are we there again?
Praxiteles
Old Master
 
Posts: 6060
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:02 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Bruges » Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:14 pm

Praxiteles wrote:The only one who mentioned this case in relation to Cobh Cathedral was McCutcheon and Mulcahy. Are we there again?


Semper argumentum ad hominem!
Bruges
Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Sirius » Sun Jul 09, 2006 9:26 am

Gianlorenzo wrote:There you said it - once they do so in accordance with the rules of their community. That says it all. What was proposed in Cobh was not in accordance with the rules of the community, ie the Universal Catholic Church.
What constitutes a 'religious community'. Can it be possible that you think that a bishop - any bishop - along with a few of his clerical friends constitutes a religious community? Where does that leave the other 90% of people in Cobh in your reckoning?


I agree that the crux is the right of each religious denomination to manage its own affairs and decide on its liturgical policy. But how should that decision be made in relation to Cobh Cathedral? Should matters of faith and morals be decided by plebiscite? If so, should the electorate be confined to the Catholic parishioners of Cobh or should it be a decision of the laity of the entire diocese? Would you include in the poll the a la carte Catholics who might only attend the Cathedral for family weddings, baptisms and funerals? I think it would be simpler to leave it to the Bishop who, I expect, will make the right decision in consultation with the Roman curia.
Sirius
Member
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:15 am
Location: Cork

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Gianlorenzo » Sun Jul 09, 2006 5:55 pm

Sirius wrote:I agree that the crux is the right of each religious denomination to manage its own affairs and decide on its liturgical policy. But how should that decision be made in relation to Cobh Cathedral? Should matters of faith and morals be decided by plebiscite? If so, should the electorate be confined to the Catholic parishioners of Cobh or should it be a decision of the laity of the entire diocese? Would you include in the poll the a la carte Catholics who might only attend the Cathedral for family weddings, baptisms and funerals? I think it would be simpler to leave it to the Bishop who, I expect, will make the right decision in consultation with the Roman curia.


In the first place this is not a question of Faith or Morals. If it were those who make up FOSCC and the vast majority of the parishioners in Cobh wouldn't have opposed their Bishop.
A short history of what happened in Cobh.

1992 Restoration project set up - Cobh Parish has to date contributed €1.3 million to this project - on third of the total - this was the percentage Cobh Parish contriuted to the building of the Cathedral. The population of Cobh is c. 1/13 of the population of the Diocese, therefore the people of Cobh have per head contributed vastly more that those in the other parishes of the Diocese, naturally as this is their parish church. c.18,000 people in the Diocese outside Cobh signed the petition against the changes to the Cathedral.

1998 re-rodering was first announced to the people, even though some tried to say that this had been included in the original Restoration Project as presented to the people - it was not. The basic plan of extending the sanctuary, removing the altar rails (less radical than the eventual plan) and intrucing new cathedra, chair, altar and ambo. The people objected. Everyone agreed that a new altar should be put in place of the present temporary altar, but the rest was unnecessary as people saw it. This is still the situation.

Numerous promises were made to come back to the people with the eventual final plan, this did not happen. On 18th July 2005 plans were submitted to Cobh Town Council for planning permission. That same evening saw the first of the "consultations" with the people, in other words the people were faced with a fait accompli.
At no time since 1992 have any of those behind the project attempted to explain to people "WHY".
If you go into Cobh today and talk to people about their Cathedral, that is the one question that will come up again and again - Why? No effort was made in Midleton to answer this question.

Finally and most importantly this is not a case of 'disobedience' to the lawful authority of the Church. At no time have people been instructed to stop opposing the changes. And there has been no consultation with the Roman Curia on this matter, other than by the people themselves. Had the document 'Liturgical Requirement' which accompanied the planning application, been submitted and approved by Rome then FOSCC and the people of Cobh would have found it very difficult to oppose further.
Gianlorenzo
Member
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 2:36 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Praxiteles » Sun Jul 09, 2006 8:57 pm

It must have been very embarrassing for poor bishop McGhee sitting thre at the the Oral Hearing in Midleton and having to listen to the evidence being produced that made it more than clear that there were discrepencies in what he had been telling various people:

- in making a solemn promise that he would come back to the people fo Cobh BEFORE submitting any plans for the Cathedral which has never been honoured.

- stating in a letter to the FOSCC in April 2004 that NO plans EXISTED for the Cathedral when in another letter to Rome in October 2003 he announced that plans had been FINALISED. As it turned out, the plans had been completed on 23 June 2003.

- trying to suggest that a public consultation had taken place on the mad-hatter scheme of Professor Cathal O'Neill when in fact the public were not shown the plans until AFTER they had been submitted and at a point when no suggestions could have been taken on board.

What are we to call all of this in ordianry terms: mendaciousness.

It is peraps just as well that he has made no further statements on the Cobh Cathedral debacle since the publication of the ABP ruling. Had he done so, could have been believed?
Praxiteles
Old Master
 
Posts: 6060
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:02 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby publicrealm » Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:03 pm

Bruges wrote:
This seems to imply that if the protected structure is your private dwelling you are entitled to modify the interior in accordance with your personal taste provided the works are reversible.



Certainly the extract you quoted would imply this Bruges.

I can only hope that what the Inspector meant was that a slight eparture from the strict Georgian townhouse pattern is acceptable - i.e. that certain very limited expressions of 'personal taste' may be permissible (provided they are reversible).

Any general deference to personal taste would open up an appalling vista - might as well scrap the record of PS's and be done with it.

(I hope the Minister for the Environment and destruction of Heritage hasn't yet heard of Archeire (or the interweb) :)
publicrealm
Member
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 12:50 am
Location: D6

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Bruges » Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:35 am

publicrealm wrote:Certainly the extract you quoted would imply this Bruges.

I can only hope that what the Inspector meant was that a slight eparture from the strict Georgian townhouse pattern is acceptable - i.e. that certain very limited expressions of 'personal taste' may be permissible (provided they are reversible).

Any general deference to personal taste would open up an appalling vista - might as well scrap the record of PS's and be done with it.

(I hope the Minister for the Environment and destruction of Heritage hasn't yet heard of Archeire (or the interweb) :)


The principle behind the Illium decision would appear to be that the designation of the INTERIOR of a private dwelling as a protected structure should not unduly restrict the right of the family to arrange the layout of the interior to suit their domestic requirements. It would be unreasonable to insist that just because a family lives in a protected structure they must consult with Ian Lumley and Dr. Freddie O Dwyer when they want to rearrange the furniture.

It is important however not to read too much into the Illium decision. Mr Desmond was in an unusually strong position as he already had planning permission by default as a result of a spectacular own goal by the Dublin City Council planners and conservation officers. In deciding to grant permission under PL 29S.131528 the Board was not comparing the proposal with a do nothing scenario but rather with the scheme which was already been deemed to be permitted by the High Court judgement of O’Leary J. in October 2004.
Bruges
Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:03 am
Location: Belgium

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby Praxiteles » Mon Jul 10, 2006 4:09 pm

publicrealm wrote:Certainly the extract you quoted would imply this Bruges.

I can only hope that what the Inspector meant was that a slight eparture from the strict Georgian townhouse pattern is acceptable - i.e. that certain very limited expressions of 'personal taste' may be permissible (provided they are reversible).

Any general deference to personal taste would open up an appalling vista - might as well scrap the record of PS's and be done with it.

(I hope the Minister for the Environment and destruction of Heritage hasn't yet heard of Archeire (or the interweb) :)



Scrapping the list of PSs is exactly what would have ensued in the wake of the CObh Case had the personal preferences of the Trustees been acccpted by ABP.
Praxiteles
Old Master
 
Posts: 6060
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2005 7:02 pm

Re: The work of E. W. Pugin

Postby MacLeinin » Thu Jul 20, 2006 11:55 pm

Sirius wrote:For the education of Gianlorenzo:

The following works for the reordering of the Church of St. Mary and the Sacred Heart in Monkstown were approved by the Conservation Officer:
The placement of the pulpit into the chancel area,
The erection of a platform to bring the altar table out into the crossing
The rearrangement and/or permanent removal of some pews
The removal of two confessional boxes
The relocation of the baptismal font
The relocation of part of the original reredos back from the existing altar table
The erection of tapestries
The blocking up of an existing door ope

The following works were not approved and were excluded by planning condition:
The removal of the existing altar and statue in the Lady Chapel

There was no submission from An Taisce
There were no submissions from the general public
There was no request for further information
The decision to permit was made within 8 weeks of the submission of the application

Here endeth the lesson


Been away for awhile.
Sirius - do you imagine that these are original proposals? They are now in the domain of the mundane.
Do not be surprised that the parishioners in Monkstown are not objecting. They have been lied to, and have in their innocence accepted the word of their priest and the so-called architectural and liturgical experts.
What is happening in Monkstown is a scandal and in years to come people ( including architects) will ask " How was this allowed to happen"?
MacLeinin
Member
 
Posts: 64
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 8:38 pm
Location: Co. Cork

PreviousNext

Return to Ireland