Planning Notices

hopefully these proposed apartments will never be built on this site.

@Dan Sullivan wrote:

The Clancy Strand development has been refused by ABP – got the letter yesterday. The website hasn’t updated yet but the notice and inspectors report should be there in de course. http://www.pleanala.ie/casenum/227368.htm

(I was sure what to do with this. So I put it here, is having one thread that just hold notices of planning applications lodged, approved and rejected a good idea?)

Excellent news! Another well deserved kick up the arse for Limerick City Council, what were they thinking when they approved this? An absolute disgrace!:mad:

Bord Pleanála rejects €100m development plan (Irish Times)

GORDON DEEGAN

THE MIDWEST economy suffered a setback yesterday with An Bord Pleanála rejecting a planned €100 million redevelopment of the Tinerana estate on the shores of Lough Derg.

The plan by Tinerana Ltd to transform the estate into a tourism resort was to generate 400 jobs through the construction and operation phase of the integrated tourism development.

The Limerick-based company purchased the estate on 270 acres of land on the shores of Lough Derg from former Killaloe doctor Paschal Carmody and his wife, Dr Frieda Keane Carmody in a multi-million euro deal in 2006.

In the plan, the company sought planning permission for the

• refurbishment of Tinerana House;
• an 18-hole championship golf course,
• a 32-bed apart-hotel,
• 155 two-bed holiday homes
• and an equestrian centre.

The developers claim that the development would have generated €30 million per annum for the regional economy and €8-€10 million per annum for the local economy.

There were no local objections to the plan and it was granted planning permission by Clare County Council last October. However, An Taisce appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanála with its heritage officer Ian Lumley describing the proposal as an “outmoded, exploitative, construction-based, car-based development”.

In a rebuttal, the developers accused An Taisce of “scaremongering” in opposing the development. However, An Bord Pleanála refused planning permission for the proposal after its inspector stated that “the net economic benefit to the county of a grant of permission for such uses on an inappropriate site is negligible”.

The inspector stated that the proposal “would be a large commercial scheme which would provide employment and facilities for tourists.

“However, there is only a finite market for the visitor accommodation and other hotel uses which make up the bulk of the proposal.

“Authorising such uses on one site would render it less commercially attractive to develop them somewhere else.”

The board formally refused permission on two grounds: that the proposal would involve an unacceptably large amount of built development distributed through the landscape, whose scale and character would not be in keeping with the rural location of the site and that the proposal would pose an unacceptable risk of environmental pollution, be prejudicial to public health and to the natural heritage of the area.

A big scalp here Dan for An Taisce. Maybe the developers should have taken a look across the lake for a few “environmental tips” from the eco village concept at Cloughjordan.

Anyone know what stage the planning is at on these houses, 30 & 31 Catherine Street and the other proposal just down fom this that involved demolition of a similar terrace with just facade retention?

Great doors, I love the quarter columns 🙂 You get two full doorways out of a single column, how frugal is that?

Where the hell is Catherine Street, and where the hell can I buy these houses?!!

(I’ve just shown my weakness for cutsey Georgians again, haven’t I? Better not let on to my Dublin crowd)

@gunter wrote:

Anyone know what stage the planning is at on these houses, 30 & 31 Catherine Street and the other proposal just down from this that involved demolition of a similar terrace with just facade retention?

I think they are in fact nos. 50 & 51 Catherine Street.

Planning Status: Further Information (15/12/2008)

50 & 51 Catherine Street (08426)

Permission for the development which will consist of the change of use from 2 dwelling to 4 dwellings to 1 office and new basement access and ancillary service spaces in the basement and at the rear of the structures and the cellars and to extend the building by one floor level to provide space for one of the apartment dwellings. The development is within the curtilage of the proposed protected structures.

@GrahamH wrote:

Where the hell is Catherine Street, and where the hell can I buy these houses?!!

Runs parallel to O’Connell Street and sadly a lot of this type of Georgian stock is disappearing. 🙁

@CologneMike wrote:

I think they are in fact nos. 50 & 51 Catherine Street.

OK time to go back to Specsavers then!

. . . . does explain why I couldn’t find the Planning Ref.

Thanks for the up-date.

Thanks for that, ColongeMike. So am I right in gathering that these are currently only proposed Protected Structures?! (then again similar houses on Pearse Street in Dublin have been afforded a similar lack of protection). Does the proposed accommodation span the two houses on each floor? The multiple occupancy seems a bit intense for such modest dwellings.

I’m still laughing at the vision of a stockinged joiner gingerly attempting to carve up a single column into quadrants.

@gunter wrote:

Anyone know what stage the planning is at on these houses, 30 & 31 Catherine Street and the other proposal just down fom this that involved demolition of a similar terrace with just facade retention?

I remember seeing some form of enforcement notice attached to the fencing last summer, around the time 1 or 2 bricks had come loose!:rolleyes:

On first viewing this appears to be a positive enough refurbishment/conservation job but then of course once you look closer you see that they want to plonk an extra level on top! Unfortunately this nonsense has become increasingly popular in Limerick in recent years!

As for the other proposal you refer to gunter ( 34-41 Catherine Street). A decision is due from An Bord Pleanala by April 30th.

Related Posts [url=“https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=87599&postcount=2182”]2182[/url] [url=“https://archiseek.com/content/showpost.php?p=91080&postcount=2284”]2284[/url]

Thanks for the update Tuborg.

Graham will be fawning over those original basement windows and the fine Limestone string course.

Having said that, I don’t know if I’d like to live in that basement apartment! The section suggests that the back is as subterranean as the front.

This pair on Catherine Street look almost untouched, I wonder what the interiors look like? It’s a pity if they end up getting carved up at this stage, they would appear to be the perfect scale to be renovated as just good quality city residences, no?

As cute as they are, I have to say they’re not as cute as this little number on Little Gerald Griffin Street.

A personal sized stone warehouse! You don’t see that everyday, and so what if the front leans out a bit, that just means there’s more elbow room inside on the upper floors.

Estuary Quarter (Howard Holdings)

08464 Permission granted 14/04/2009

Permission for the demolition of existing structures and the development of an 8-storey office building with two no. ground floor retail units (totalling 1234sq.m. gross floor area) at ground floor level. The gross floor area for the offices is 6,367sq.m. The development also incorporates basement car park with 34 no. spaces, plant areas, ESB substation (32sq.m.), service area with separate entrance and ancillary site works

See also posts 2153 1661

Good feature to the skyline, could they go up 2/3 floors? It wold appear less boxish.

This one kind of slipped in under the radar a bit!

Substantial further information was requested in the original application but instead the developers withdrew it and decided to submit a fresh application.

While this new office block will replace a vacant, disused site, it will basically be lost amongst the depressing mediocrity that is Richmond Court/Mount Kennet!

0975

Permission for 1. Change of use from night-club/licensed premises use to use as a Tourist Accomodation Hostel at basement, ground, first, second and third floor levels. 2. Extension to rear at second and third floor levels for tourist accomodation purposes. 3. construction of new roof/attic structure at fourth floor level for tourist accomodation purposed. 4. construction of new shop font at ground floor level including signage and the taking out of 2 no. external staircases to basement.

43, 44, 45 and 46 Cecil Street, Limerick.

Decision Due Date: 10/05/2009

Is this the old The Globe building? Hard to tell from the imagine exactly what the plans are but Limerick could certainly do with a tourist/youth hostel, it’s amazing that there’s none.

Yeah its the former globe nightclub, I think it used to be a lap dancing club before aswell!;)

There used to be a hostel up on Pery Square, where the new hotel is now. Is the one near Barringtons still going or is that gone aswell?

08210

Demolish the existing premises and build a five storey premises consisting of a retail unit on the ground floor and four floors of offices overhead and associated site works.

19 Henry Street

Refused on 24/04/2009

Below is a brief summary of the reasons given for the refusal;

• Possible overlooking and overshadowing of adjoining properties
• Lack of quality communal open space
• A poor design solution likened to a monolithic and fortress like appearance
• Poor material and finish choices
• Possible issues arising from collection of waste associated with the proposed development and no proposal submitted to offset this issue
• Lack of car-parking or proposal to offset this issue

why was it refused?

Are the council bored?

@dave123 wrote:

why was it refused?

Are the council bored?

You have a pair of eyes in your head, dont you?

It was refused because its rubbish! The Henry Street frontage in particular is a dis-jointed mess!

We already know you believe any development is good development!:rolleyes: Fortunately the planners have taken a different view this time!

Its quite obvious the site needs to be redeveloped but we can definitely do better than the proposal above!

@Tuborg wrote:

08210 19 Henry Street Refused on 24/04/2009

Below is a brief summary of the reasons given for the refusal;

• Possible overlooking and overshadowing of adjoining properties

I presume they mean the “Hanging Gardens” here, if so why did they give Butler’s office development the green light or have they security concerns from giving people a good peep into 😉 the Garda Station across the road?

• A poor design solution likened to a monolithic and fortress like appearance

Does the planning authority give any guidelines as to how this corner can be developed?

• Lack of car-parking or proposal to offset this issue

Maybe the developer should tell the city planning authority to get their own public transport routes in order first by forcing the city bus corridors issue!

Below is Butlers development at the former Post Office site, the shaded building to the very right is our failed applicant.

@CologneMike wrote:

• Lack of car-parking or proposal to offset this issue

Maybe the developer should tell the city planning authority to get their own public transport routes in order first by forcing the city bus corridors issue!

I thought that particular statement was pretty ridiculous aswell. The City Council have been banging on for years now about the importance of public transport, yet they cant reach an agreement with their gombeen councillors about the provision of bus lanes in the city.

I got a timely reminder of Limerick political neanderthalism just this evening when a City Councillor called to the house looking for votes. When I asked them what their position was in relation to the proposed green routes, I was told that “it would be VERY unfair to expect residents to give up their parking spaces to accomodate a bus lane!”

I mean can you believe that for a response? What exactly makes these residents think that they can park their cars on a public road anyway?

The design does look pretty awful. Even if having to have a lower part to the building next the Hanging Gardens, one could surely arrange a more interesting looking facade and arrangement of the structure? But I don’t quite understand the comment about overshadowing adjacent structures considering the lower height at the corner (in fact I would have thought 3, possibly 4 stories would have still been OK there – just not the full five or more right next the Hanging Gardens).

7 A/B Catherine Place

09123

Carr Associates Architects / Knocklong Property Developments Ltd

Planning permission is being sought for the elevational changes and associated plan amendments to the proposed development previously approved under P.03/403, including the revised layout of the fourth floor and all associated siteworks. This application includes for the retention of the demolition of the existing stone wall along the rear laneway of Hartstonge Mews and the proposed reconstruction of same using the salvage stone.

This seems to be an infill development.

I’ve no problems with a contemporary design appearing here, just not happy the window proportions to those of the neighbouring buildings.

Here an account of No 8 (NIAH)

I agree, the ground and first floor is k, but the upper window proportion are bit too large. IMO. Catherine street seems to be on the renaissance now, as was and is Henry street. This could be Limerick’s finest street if they have good upkeep of the existing Georgion and blending the old and new contempary buildings around it.

@CologneMike wrote:

7 A/B Catherine Place

09123

Carr Associates Architects / Knocklong Property Developments Ltd

Planning permission is being sought for the elevational changes and associated plan amendments to the proposed development previously approved under P.03/403, including the revised layout of the fourth floor and all associated siteworks. This application includes for the retention of the demolition of the existing stone wall along the rear laneway of Hartstonge Mews and the proposed reconstruction of same using the salvage stone.

This seems to be an infill development.

I’ve no problems with a contemporary design appearing here, just not happy the window proportions to those of the neighbouring buildings.

Here an account of No 8 (NIAH)

According to the planning records, permission was granted for the original appplication (03403) on 30/03/2004, while the current application was submitted on 24/04/2009.

I was under the impression that planning permission expires after 5 years if it has not been acted upon? If this is the case, should the applicant not have to re-apply for permission or at least apply for retention? All that they seem to be proposing here are merely modifications to the original plans!:confused:

As for the proposal itself. The window arrangement is indeed a disaster, why cant they just respect the window line of the adjacent buildings?

Also that central glazed area looks like it contains a fair amount of pvc panelling?:rolleyes:

34-41 Catherine Street ~ Catherine Street Courtyard

Construct six floors of commercial accommodation consisting of; offices, retail at street level, 3 levels of basement car parking 110 car parking spaces and associated site works in connection with the proposed development.

This includes the demolition of numbers 34,35,36,37,38,39,40 & 41 Catherine Street along with the buildings to the rear of these properties including the former Limerick Leader facilities.

The facades of 35, 36 & 37 (35 & 37 are proposed protected structures) will be retained and restored to their original state.

Architects: Murray O’Laoire Architects

Application Status: Refused

Previous Post

Single objector halts €40m city plan (Irish Examiner)

By Jimmy Woulfe Mid-West Correspondent

Friday, May 29, 2009

A SOLE objector has succeeded in halting a massive €40 million commercial and retail development in Limerick city centre which would have given work to 600 people.

An Bord Pleanála yesterday overturned a decision of Limerick City Council last November to grant permission to a business consortium, Catherine Street Partnership to develop a huge area along Catherine Street, Glentworth Street and Mallow Street.

The development proposed to include five floors with 55,000sq ft of commercial space, 5,500sq ft of offices, and 5,000 sq ft retail on the ground floor.

The plan also included parking for 110 cars.

An Bord Pleanála knocked the plan following an objection by a businessman who owns property in the area.

A spokesman for the promoters said a series of meetings took place between the consortium and the businessman, but they could not reach agreement.

Although An Bord Pleanála’s own inspector approved the development, the board upheld the objection due to concerns for the heritage of the area.

The spokesman for the consortium said: “This is very disappointing news for us and, we believe, for Limerick.

“This was an important job generating development project fully in keeping with the city council’s own ambitions for urban renewal in this part of the city.

“It would have completely lifted the area around the site which has become a focus for anti-social behaviour of different types, including prostitution and drug taking.

“We were extremely diligent with regard to our heritage responsibilities and even at this stage feel that we could satisfy An Bord Pleanala and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, on any heritage concerns they may have.”

Limerick Chamber of Commerce chief executive, Maria Kelly said a development like that proposed would have been a positive addition to the city centre.

She said: “Clearly people have a right to object. Any development which can bring life to any part of the city, giving employment, has to be welcomed. I know we have to have a balance with the aesthetic.”

Meanwhile, appellant Michael Duffy who owned adjacent buildings which are let as apartments and a creche/montessori, was concerned about the serious traffic impact during the construction phase, along with the continued negative impact on his properties, including noise disturbance and the excavation of a car park which will make the creche unusable.

These kids attending the Montessori Creche need future prospects too. The state of degeneration facing these old buildings on Catherine Street could finish them off now. 🙁

@CologneMike wrote:

34-41 Catherine Street ~ Catherine Street Courtyard

Construct six floors of commercial accommodation consisting of; offices, retail at street level, 3 levels of basement car parking 110 car parking spaces and associated site works in connection with the proposed development.

This includes the demolition of numbers 34,35,36,37,38,39,40 & 41 Catherine Street along with the buildings to the rear of these properties including the former Limerick Leader facilities.

The facades of 35, 36 & 37 (35 & 37 are proposed protected structures) will be retained and restored to their original state.

Architects: Murray O’Laoire Architects

Application Status: Refused

This is extremely disappointing news! I thought this was a decent enough proposal which could have been further improved by retaining No’s 35,36 & 37 in their entirity and knocking a floor off the new building to the rear.

It turns out that the office building was reduced by a floor anyway in the subsequent further information response. It also looks like significant (and badly needed) public realm works would have taken place as part of the project!

According to the report, the board had issues with the facade retention of No’s 35,36, 37 and also with what they term “an innapropriate design intervention in the streetscape”.

ABP Order

The proposed development, which would entail demolition of most of the fabric of the historic buildings No’s 34-41 Catherine Street, would be an inappropriate design intervention in the streetscape at this location, seriously injurious to the amenities of the Architectural Conservation Area. Therefore, the proposed development would conflict with the provisions of the development plan, seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The Board did not agree with the Inspector’s assessment that the development would not damage the character of the Architectural Conservation Area and neither did the Board consider that the conservation value of the buildings lies only in the facades, especially in the case of No’s 35-37 Catherine Street. The Board also noted the provisions of Section 57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.

I hope the people behind this project have another go at it because the current condition of that site is nothing short of a disgrace! Michael Duffy will be delighted though, despite his pathetic, “nimby” objection being rubbished!:rolleyes:

Clearly, the full retention of No’s 35-37 and a significant reduction in the bulk of any new building is required if redevelopment is to go ahead here!

34-41 Catherine Street

The buildings in question . . . . . . .

@Tuborg wrote:

Clearly, the full retention of No’s 35-37 and a significant reduction in the bulk of any new building is required if redevelopment is to go ahead here!

Would that be a bad outcome? Despite the run down appearance, I’ve always found some charm in that stretch of Catherine Street. A small amount of work and some improvements to the public domain, like wider footpaths would do wonders.
[ATTACH]9664[/ATTACH]

Catherine street is a charming street, its seems like its stuck in the 70s but in a good way. I think this street has great potential, if they redeveloped that vast majority of the pockets inflils and refurbish the old georgian buildings that still exist on the street.

I heard that they were plans to build a high rise on the Eircom site or Esb site. This is one of the best potentious sites in the city centre! the ESB site could well tower to 22-25 facing the river and Riverpoint and tapering down to 10-12 story’s facing towards Henry street. Something like the Riverpoint does on Mungret street in that fashion. It could be a very interesting spot altogether.

@Tuborg wrote:

This is extremely disappointing news! I thought this was a decent enough proposal which could have been further improved by retaining No’s 35,36 & 37 in their entirity and knocking a floor off the new building to the rear.

It turns out that the office building was reduced by a floor anyway in the subsequent further information response. It also looks like significant (and badly needed) public realm works would have taken place as part of the project!

According to the report, the board had issues with the facade retention of No’s 35,36, 37 and also with what they term “an innapropriate design intervention in the streetscape”.

I hope the people behind this project have another go at it because the current condition of that site is nothing short of a disgrace! Michael Duffy will be delighted though, despite his pathetic, “nimby” objection being rubbished!:rolleyes:

Clearly, the full retention of No’s 35-37 and a significant reduction in the bulk of any new building is required if redevelopment is to go ahead here!

Are reptiles running the planning office,it seems every new applicant in the city centre is been refused lately. Yet they are proposing a cinema out in Singland, great:rolleyes:

Seriously this kind of planning just wreck’s my head, it has me scratcing it.

@jimg wrote:

Would that be a bad outcome?

Jimg I would fear so. If they are left in their present state then they could all end up with a similar fate as those on Cecil Street did below (post from May 2007). I personally would favour their integration into a modern office complex. The three levels of underground car parking would accommodate the widening of the footpaths on Catherine Street too.

Above all in my opinion this development should raise the appreciation of the superior Georgian stock that surrounds the rest of the block (Mallow / O’Connell / Glentworth Streets). Landlords just using these Georgian buildings as “bed sits” would never invest the kind of money to restore these buidings to their former glory, as they would not see a return on their investment from doing so. Investing €40 million here on an office development could transform the rest of the block.

Georgian buildings in grave danger -1bn remedy sought (Limerick Post) May 2007

The future of some 500 Georgian houses in Limerick is under threat, unless a concerted drive is set in motion to conserve this valuable heritage asset.

Limerick’s Georgian quarter has suffered under-investment and neglect, including dilapidated and sub-divided buildings and planning constraints.

Dick Tobin, senior planner with Limerick City Council, revealed there are 500 Georgian houses in the city that may not have a long future, due to very shaky foundations.

If you take the demolition of 26 and 27 Cecil Street and construction of the three-storey Dominican Biblical Centre. It shows in the inspectors report how shaky some of the Georgian buildings have been allowed to come.

Dilapidation Report by Arup Consulting Engineers

No. 26

• Vacant with the exception of basement and ground floor.
• Dry lined internally.
• Cracking to wall junctions and substantial falls in floors and bulges in walls.
• Windows and doors substantially off square.
• Extensive cracking to external elevations with brickwork in very poor condition.
• Significant settlement to party wall and chimney.

No. 27

• Vacant (for some time).
• Wall ties/restraints installed some 10 years ago.
• Extremely poor condition throughout.
• Very significant and substantial cracking, bulging and deterioration of walls and especially brickwork.
• Very significant falls in floors.
• Wall junctions debonded.
• Windows and doors are very substantially off square.
• Extensive infestation and rot in all timbers – heads, lintols, joists, floor and stairs.
• Substantial settlement of party wall and chimney.

Many opposing views in the Report by Dúchas, An Taisce, Irish Georgian Society, Limerick Civic Trust and so on. It is a worthwhile read and it sends Dick Tobin’s message home that time is not on our side with our Georgian terraced heritage!

Images Limerick.com and Elliot Maguire Landers Architects

@CologneMike wrote:

. . . . they ( the Catherine St. houses) could all end up with a similar fate as those on Cecil Street . . . . I personally would favour their integration into a modern office complex.

There’s an argument that the Dominican Biblical Centre solution, in proposing a decent contemporary building, rather than the compromise solution of facade retention, is the better route to go.

Personally I think there’s usually a range of other solutions that seldom get a look in, but that’s probably a discussion for another day.

What we shouldn’t do is slip back into is the mind-set that was common-place in the 60s and 70s, the belief that historic building stock always survives on borrowed time, has invariably exceeded anticipated life expectancy, and was always either ”gerry-built” in the first place, or indeed, ”riddled with dry rot”.

All buildings are subject to maintenance and will deteriorate if they don’t get it.

Directly opposite that Dominican Biblical Centre on the corner of Cecil St. and Dominick St. is a case in point; the 1980s Social Welfare Office building.

While I wouldn’t personally put this building in the same category as a terrace of Georgian houses , on the side elevation we can see more settlement in the brickwork than you’d see in a typical Georgian terrace! . . . or perhaps it was hit by a truck?

Although personally I find such blunt styles very ugly, I can see that building being better regarded in other more “airy” situations rather than hemmed in at the corner there. While one might consider having a focal point at that corner as you look up Cecil Street, the monstrous entrance to this building, being in shadow as it mostly is on that side, is not the focal point that one wants to see.

@jimg wrote:

Would that be a bad outcome? Despite the run down appearance, I’ve always found some charm in that stretch of Catherine Street. A small amount of work and some improvements to the public domain, like wider footpaths would do wonders.

Not at all. I was merely pointing out the conditions under which a redevelopment of this site would most likely proceed! I have always favoured the full retention of those three buildings!

For some reason though, the retention of period buildings, as part of a larger development project, rarely seems to be a popular option in this country! Just take the opera centre as a local example,

In this case, the Catherine Street Partnership claim that the interiors of No’s 35-37 are of no architectural value. However, a more likely reason for their proposed demolition might be that they offer less favourable commercial floorspace!:(

@CologneMike wrote:

These kids attending the Montessori Creche need future prospects too. The state of degeneration facing these old buildings on Catherine Street could finish them off now. 🙁

It is a pity about this development, we had a good hard look at it and reckoned it was the sort of infill development that the city needs in order to sustain the Georgian areas. We have to work out some means to make the Georgian housing usable beyond the retention of the façades and that has to mean scaling the areas behind the streetscape. We thought this would act as proof that off street density could be increased and encourage people to look at the city centre more. I would hope they can come back with a new application.

@Dan Sullivan wrote:

It is a pity about this development, we had a good hard look at it and reckoned it was the sort of infill development that the city needs in order to sustain the Georgian areas. We have to work out some means to make the Georgian housing usable beyond the retention of the façades and that has to mean scaling the areas behind the streetscape. We thought this would act as proof that off street density could be increased and encourage people to look at the city centre more. I would hope they can come back with a new application.

Strangely enough and just diagonally across the road, An Bord Pleanála gave the green light to an even more high density development just three years ago (image below).

Though the façade of the Henry Street side of this development is somewhat disappointing but when flagship tenants like the Department of Foreign Affairs (Irish Aid) move in to the central part of the complex, it will lead to a positive spin-off for the Georgian buildings on Mallow, O’Connell and Hartstonge Streets (e.g. see former County Council Buildings).

It appears to me that the Catherine Street proposal is of a higher standard than what went up across the road. The fact that An Bord Pleanála’s own inspector approved the development but the board upheld the objection due to concerns for the heritage of the area. I fear pragmatism and thus heritage lost out here. 🙁

Hartstonge Gate ~ River Stone House posts 2098, 2099, 895, 848.

Why did they not let it go ahead. I think this development is what Catherine Street needed.

36-39 Nicholas Street, King’s Island, Limerick. (08/33)

Construction of office buildings incorporating ground floor gallery/café, offices to upper levels and all associated site works.

Case reference: PL30 .232088

Case type: Planning Appeal

Decision: Grant permission with revised conditions

Date Signed: 16/06/2009

Permission has been granted by ABP despite a recommendation of refusal by the planning inspector. It’s the second time in a matter of weeks here that ABP have gone against the recommendation of its inspector!

11 conditions have been laid down, including the removal of 1 floor.

Link

“Cecil House”, 6 Lower Cecil Street (08/543)

Permission refused by the City Council.

Appealed to An Bord Pleanala by the developer.

Case is due to be decided by 17-08-2009

Permission for development which will consist of the demolition of an existing 3 storey office building and to construct a new five storey office building.

The Manager’s order (City Council) giving the reasons for refusing permission.

The proposed development on a restricted city centre site adjacent to buildings of architectural merit as identified on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (Oifig an Phoist and St Michael’s Sporting Club) is considered by virtue of its size, scale and bulk to constitute over development of the site.

Furthermore its poor quality design would detract from the existing streetscape thus seriously detracting from the setting of the adjoining buildings.

Lower Cecil Street has indeed a unique streetscape, albeit all kinds of everything!

Previous Posts 1350, 1372

@CologneMike wrote:

“Cecil House”, 6 Lower Cecil Street (08/543)

Permission refused by the City Council.

Appealed to An Bord Pleanala by the developer.

Case is due to be decided by 17-08-2009

Theres not much to say about this proposal, only that it’s a pretty terrible concoction of architectural styles. The Council were correct to turn it down and I’m sure An Board Pleanala will do the same.

Maybe if the developer could acquire the neighbouring building (Ladbrokes), it would give them the opportunity to come up with a more appropriate design?

The stone fronted ground floor of the existing Cecil House is probably worthy of preservation too!

@Tuborg wrote:

Maybe if the developer could acquire the neighbouring building (Ladbrokes), it would give them the opportunity to come up with a more appropriate design?

I agree.

The city council stress that height is a major issue for this side of Lower Cecil Street. Therefore it is interestingly to see from the Henry Street perspective that two failed planning permissions on either side of Butler’s five/six storey office block were in fact too high?

By the way I take Butler’s Post Office development will remain unfinished (moth-balled) for the present till the banking sector gets their house in order or has there been some activity recently?

See also planning 08210

@CologneMike wrote:

I agree.

The city council stress that height is a major issue for this side of Lower Cecil Street. Therefore it is interestingly to see from the Henry Street perspective that two failed planning permissions on either side of Butler’s five/six storey office block were in fact too high?

Personally I think that office block behind the old GPO is at least a floor too high but thats all academic now. As regards the application on the Glentworth Street corner, I think I would have been more concerned about the poor quality design rather than anything else. I reckon a well designed four storey structure would work fine here!

@CologneMike wrote:

By the way I take Butler’s Post Office development will remain unfinished (moth-balled) for the present till the banking sector gets their house in order or has there been some activity recently?

Nah, its been idle for nearly 2 months at this stage and they were taking it pretty slowly before that aswell so theres a lot to do even when it starts up again!

It’s a pity really, I was looking forward to seeing the finished product.

@Tuborg wrote:

36-39 Nicholas Street, King’s Island, Limerick. (08/33)

ABP permission granted for the construction of office buildings incorporating ground floor gallery/café, offices to upper levels and all associated site works.

To me, this case illustrates what happens to highly sensitive redevelopment sites in the absence of a strong planning vision.

This is a corner site on the city’s medieval high street, diagonally opposite the cathedral. The site incorporates the two and a half storey remains of a late medieval party wall (including 1st floor carved fireplace). It would be hard to envisage a site with greater redevelopment sensitivities.

However, none of these sensitivities appear to have informed the design of the proposed office block (café? on ground floor) which offers the same glass box aesthetic to the streetscape that one imagines it would have anyway, had the site been located anywhere else.

What was the planning response?

The Limerick City planner initially expressed concern about ”no account being taken of the gradient of the street (St. Peter’s St.), the scale and bulk of the design and the inappropriate glass box design”, yet nine month later, as the Bord Pleanála inspector’s report stated, virtually the same design proposal was granted permission.

The ABP inspector then went on to citicise the ‘scale, bulk and design’ of the proposed development, but ”. . . more so in relation to the small scale fabric of the surrounding area rather than the impact on the nearby protected structure . . .”, and recommended refusal.

Taking up the theme of ‘scale, bulk and design’, the Bord rejected their inspector’s recommendation to refuse and granted permission, but with the omission of a full storey and a block to the rear.

So the development will still be a glass box, but now it will be a squat glass box!

Instead of Limerick City Council leading from the front and demanding an architectural response that re-imagines Nicholas St./ Mary Street in the scale and status of it’s once great medieval main street, the city will get anonymous scaled down office park in-fill so as not to visibly obtrude in the eroded streetscape of anonymous truncated two storey houses that inhabit the corpse of it’s civic heritage.

There isn’t even a condition requiring a plaque commiserating with Limerick on the loss of it’s civic spine?

230654: The Crescent, Dooradoyle, Limerick. (08/46)

Retail store, landscaped street, multi-storey car park, 9 no.mixed use unit, extension of existing basement car park, temporary car park areas, and all associated works.

Decision: Refuse permission

Date Signed: 24/07/2009

Simple common sense has prevailed here. All in all, a much needed vote of confidence for city centre trading with 2 extremely positive decisions handed down in recent days!:)

Incidentally, the application for modifications to St. Nessan’s road was also turned down.

230655: St. Nessan’s Road and Dooradoyle Road, Dooradoyle, Limerick (08/47)

Replacement of roundabout with signalised cross road junction, and all associated works.

Decision: Refuse permission

Date Signed: 24/07/2009

What’s with all the refusing good applicants??

The Crescent is one centre I would like to see extended and there is no reason why that slot of wasteland shouldn’t be redevoloped. Limerick can hold an Opera centre and a crescent. The Extended crescent means more shoppers from the Cork Catchment will shop here.

The Development that is proposed at the centre is nothing exstensive or over bearing.
Either way, the Crescent will be within the city limits in the next year or two.

I can see Dooradoyle been added to the city boundary fairly soon.

The Crescent is one centre I would like to see extended and there is no reason why that slot of wasteland shouldn’t be redevoloped. Limerick can hold an Opera centre and a crescent. The Extended crescent means more shoppers from the Cork Catchment will shop here

I think the question should be, Can Limerick city centre survive an Extended Crescent,Coonagh Cross, Childers Road, Parkway Retail park, Parkway shopping centre, Jetland centre with retail units, Delta Retail Park, City East Retail Park and Castetroy Shopping centre?

I think that is more the question…maybe Limerick could have survived an extended Crescent if all the other centres, based in Co.Limerick hadn’t been given the go ahead..it appears to me that the extended crescent would have been the straw that broke the camels back for the city retailers…..and because of that I believe that the decision was correct to refuse permission.

A few more planning updates…..

@CologneMike wrote:

“Cecil House”, 6 Lower Cecil Street (08/543)

Permission refused by the City Council.

Appealed to An Bord Pleanala by the developer.

This case has now been Refused by An Bord Pleanala.

09123

Knocklong Property Developments Ltd

Planning permission is being sought for the elevational changes and associated plan amendments to the proposed development previously approved under P.03/403, including the revised layout of the fourth floor and all associated siteworks. This application includes for the retention of the demolition of the existing stone wall along the rear laneway of Hartstonge Mews and the proposed reconstruction of same using the salvage stone.

7 A/B Catherine Place, Limerick

CONDITIONAL on 21/07/2009

I passed this site today and was surprised to find that the block-work was already up to first floor level. According to the Manager’s Order, the previous application (03403) was given a planning extension until March 1st 2010:confused:.

Further information received on 29/06/2009 has included a re-design of the window arrangement and modifications to the roof structure. These changes have now been approved by the Council.

09143

Permission for change of use of existing retail outlet to cafe and permission for signage on front elevation including all ancillary site works

74A Little Catherine Street, Limerick

Another cafe for the Thomas Street/Little Catherine Street area. The site in question is a small, vacant shop unit next to Carlton Coffee.

Just across the street, a change of use is proposed for the upper levels of the Thomas Street centre which has been empty since it was completed last Autumn.

09169

Permission for change of use at the Thomas Street Centre formerly known as no’s 44,45,46 and 47 Thomas Street (no. 47 Thomas Street formerly known as No. 1 Catherine Street) and no’s 2,3,4 and 5 Catherine Street. This application includes for the change of use of the first floor of the existing development from offices and retail (Class 3 & 1) to medical/health services (Class 8) and change of use for 2nd,3rd,4th and 5th floor offices (Class 3) to medical/health services (Class 8), for the development previously granted planning permission under planning reference 08/84

Decision Due Date: 27/08/2009

@CologneMike wrote:

50 & 51 Catherine Street (08426)

Permission for the development which will consist of the change of use from 2 dwelling to 4 dwellings to 1 office and new basement access and ancillary service spaces in the basement and at the rear of the structures and the cellars and to extend the building by one floor level to provide space for one of the apartment dwellings. The development is within the curtilage of the proposed protected structures.

Planning Status: Further Information (15/12/2008)

Disappointing news on this one unfortunately. The applicant failed to respond to the further information request within the specified time limit and the application was “Deemed Withdrawn” on July 22nd.

The clock is seriously ticking for those 2 buildings now!:mad:

A couple of planning decisions handed down in the last while…

0975

Permission for 1. Change of use from night-club/licensed premises use to use as a Tourist Accommodation Hostel at basement, ground, first, second and third floor levels. 2. Extension to rear at second and third floor levels for tourist accommodation purposes. 3. construction of new roof/attic structure at fourth floor level for tourist accommodation purposed. 4. construction of new shop font at ground floor level including signage and the taking out of 2 no. external staircases to basement.

43, 44, 45 and 46 Cecil Street, Limerick

CONDITIONAL on 10/8/2009

09131

Redemptorist Community

The development will consist of amendments to the scheme previously permitted under Reg. Ref. 06/480 (An Bord Pleanala Ref. PL.30.226326) to include the replacement of a permitted three storey residential building (Block C) and its associated surface car parking and access road at the north eastern corner of the site with a two storey 60 bedroom nursing home (2,585 sq. metres gross floor area) providing elderly, nursing, dementia and respite care. 25 car parking spaces will be provided for staff and visitors to the nursing home at surface level. The proposed development includes connection to all services, all site development works including landscaping, the provision of bin storage and a separate plant room (25 sq. metres). Mount St. Alphonsus Church, which adjoins the monastery building, is a Protected Structure (Development Plan Ref. RPS044). No works are proposed to Mount St. Alphonsus Church. The application site is within the curtilage of a Protected Structure.

Redemptorist Monastery, South Circular Road, Limerick

CONDITIONAL on 2/9/2009

09171

Development of 13 dwelling houses detailed as follows. (A) To construct entrance; access roads and footpaths, water services, and other site development works to the lane at the rear of Revington Park, which was previously granted planning permission under P01/227(PL30.129.197). (B) Demolition of No. 28 Revington Park. (c) To construct 8 no. two storey detached houses complete with attic conversion to the rear of 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 37 all of which were previously granted planning permission under P01/227 (PL.30.129.197). (D) To construct1 no. two storey detached house complete with attic conversion to the rear of 27 Revington Park which was previously granted planning permission under P03/460 (PL.30.208.738). (E) To construct 1 no. two storey detached house complete with attic conversion to the rear of 29 Revington Park. (F) To construct 3 no. two storey detached houses complete with attic conversion to the rear of 38, 39 and 40, all of which were previously granted planning permission under P03/80 (PL.30.205.787).

Revington Park, North Circular Road

CONDITIONAL on 25/08/2009

Montrose, Carrowkeel, Annacotty, Co. Limerick. (08/1912)

Demolition of a house, construction of a park and ride facility, amenity building, signage, amendments to entrance and all associated site works.

Case type: Planning Appeal

Decision: Refuse permission

Date Signed: 20/08/2009

ABP link

Plus a few more currently under consideration.

After the withdrawal of the major retail, office & hotel plan for the Parkway, an altogether more minor development is now planned.

09217

Lindat Ltd

Permission for the proposed development consists of modifications and extension to the existing Parkway Shopping Centre comprising of, (1) the provision of three additional retail units (2) modification of existing internal mall, (3) provision of new external facade treatment, (4) relocation of an extension to existing surface car park lay-out and vehicular access, (5) all ancillary site development works including new pedestrian access ramp, boundary landscaping and temporary construction hoarding and construction signage.

Parkway Shopping Centre, Dublin Road, Limerick,

Decision Due Date: 19/10/2009

An interesting one here.

09221

Marine Pine Ltd

Permission for demolition of the existing shop and amusement hall at 42 & 42 Parnell Street and for the construction of a 3 storey building (1644.05 sq.m) yard and associated site works. The new building will contain a coffee shop, merchandising retail area, amusement hall, courtyard and putting green at ground floor level, a snooker club at first floor level and a cinemaette, an international sports museum and associated offices at second floor level.

42/43 Parnell Street, Limerick,

Decision Due Date: 22/10/2009

With plenty of empty units already in Caherdavin, it seems strange that someone is looking to build even more houses out there!:confused:

09204

Permission for a development of 18 dwellings consisting of 4 no. two storey detached houses, 8 no. three-storey semi detached houses, and 6 no. two storey houses in two terraces of three houses with end house having detached domestic garage including forming new entrance off access road to Aylesbury, to mains drainage and all associated site works

Caherdavin , Limerick

Decision Due Date: 04/10/2009

09169

Leys Developments Ltd.

Permission for change of use at the Thomas Street Centre formerly known as no’s 44,45,46 and 47 Thomas Street (no. 47 Thomas Street formerly known as No. 1 Catherine Street) and no’s 2,3,4 and 5 Catherine Street. This application includes for the change of use of the first floor of the existing development from offices and retail (Class 3 & 1) to medical/health services (Class 8) and change of use for 2nd,3rd,4th and 5th floor offices (Class 3) to medical/health services (Class 8), for the development previously granted planning permission under planning reference 08/84

44,45,46 & 47 Thomas Street, Limerick,

Decision: CONDITIONAL

This seems to be shaping up to be a form of one stop shop, with a range of medical services to be provided under the same roof.

A pharmacy willl now occupy the majority of the ground floor retail space, which was originally designed as 5 individual units.

Ideally, it would have been better to have achieved a mix of retail/food outlets here but I guess anything that brings a bit of life to this part of Thomas Street is to be welcomed

Mayor calls for regulations over planning objections (Irish Examiner)

By Jimmy Woulfe

THE mayor of Limerick city has called for new regulations concerning objections that are lodged with An Bord Pleanála to developments approved by a local authority.

Cllr Kevin Kiely said that over the past two years, developments worth €1.2 billion had been delayed or lost in Limerick due to objections lodged with and appeals board, although they had been approved by the city council.

“This has a devastating affect on the city centre. The planners down here in Limerick know what is happening in the city with regard to planning and before they give planning permission, every application is examined over and over again, before a decision to grant permission is arrived at.”

In the latest setback a plan to develop a €20 million structure on the site of Limerick Boat Club was overturned by An Bord Pleanála after a number of objections were lodged.

Up to 200 construction jobs would have been on offer had the development been given the go-ahead.

Mr Kiely said as the rules stand, a person can object to any kind of project by lodging a nominal sum of money with An Bord Pleanála.

“I think if a person is going to go to An Bord Pleanála to object to a development approved by the local county or city council, they should have to sign a bond for a substantial sum of money, say €10,000. 😮

“If their appeal is upheld then they would not be asked to honour the bond.

“However, if the objection is turned down by An Bord Pleanála, the objector should be made liable to honour the bond entered into. We are witnessing huge projects in the city being lost when we need jobs and investment.”

He said Bord Pleanála does not appear to understand what the council is trying to do to bring more quality projects and investment into the city centre.

“The city council centre turned down planning permission for a number of fast food outlets with good reason. But they were given the go ahead on appeal to An Bord Pleanála. Now these two small outlets are causing huge traffic problems where they are located.”

Thanks to people appealing on heritage grounds to An Bord Pleanála, we should eventually end up with a better quality “Opera Centre” than what was initially approved by the city council in the first place.

Hmmm . . . . . to follow the Mayor’s logic, reciprocally, the city manager should be personally hit with a €10,000 penalty for letting such projects (Opera Centre) poorly through in the first place. :rolleyes:

@CologneMike wrote:

Thanks to people appealing on heritage grounds to An Bord Pleanála, we should eventually end up with a better quality “Opera Centre” than what was initially approved by the city council in the first place.

Hmmm . . . . . to follow the Mayor’s logic, reciprocally, the city manager should be personally hit with a €10,000 penalty for letting such projects (Opera Centre) poorly through in the first place. :rolleyes:

God Almighty, arent we lucky that Kiely has little or no power in his capacity as mayor, because some of the suggestions he has come out with since taking office have been staggering in their stupidity.

This kind of “development at all costs” attitude has already inflicted so much damage on Limerick over the years, yet it appears some people are still happy for it to continue!:rolleyes:

Thankfully, those recent decisions handed down by ABP have spared the city from further butcherings!

Kevin Kiely is one of the worst mayors Limerick will ever have. There have been many ignorant and ineffective mayors in the past, but Kiely is different. He is as ignorant as they come, but he shouts loudly, such that some people might listen. He is also well-connected in Fine Gael, and if and when they come to power, it is the likes of Kiely who will have big influence. There are question marks over his stance on a number of developer led projects. Most recently, he has called for the district court to be moved to Robert Butlers white elephant development in the old GPO building. Is Kiely not a long-standing friend of Butler? This association is never questioned or reported. During the row about the Limerick Boat Club, he is on the record as saying that “we (the Council) should be rolling out the red carpet to developers”. By this reasoning, Kiely is satisifed with every developer-led project in the city. The mind boggles.

He further reasons that the City Council knows best when it comes to making planning decisions for the city. Recent developments would suggest otherwise. I’d further suggest that the Council is the worst possible body to be making such decisions that are of particular sensitivity to the well-being of the city. Certainly, with the likes of Kiely (and others) there, that seems plainly obvious.

Quote:

09204

Permission for a development of 18 dwellings consisting of 4 no. two storey detached houses, 8 no. three-storey semi detached houses, and 6 no. two storey houses in two terraces of three houses with end house having detached domestic garage including forming new entrance off access road to Aylesbury, to mains drainage and all associated site works

Caherdavin , Limerick
Decision Due Date: 04/10/2009

this one had a load of objections from residents and Green Party – mostly relating to the existing flood plains in the area and the loss of amenity green play space from an existing development for the new development’s entrance. Its gone to Further Info Request.

@zulutango wrote:

Kevin Kiely is one of the worst mayors Limerick will ever have. There have been many ignorant and ineffective mayors in the past, but Kiely is different. He is as ignorant as they come, but he shouts loudly, such that some people might listen.

Mayor Kiely ignorant? For someone who lives in the well-heeled Ennis Road area of the city, I’d say he must be a knowledgeable bloke . . . . just like the people who elected him. :rolleyes:

However his assertion that “An Bord Pleanála does not appear to understand what the council is trying to do” would have more a “smack of arrogance” about it than that of ignorance.

Hmmm . . . do you have a personal agenda with this politician?

The City Council needs to get “heritage issues” properly dealt with before granting permission. The window of opportunity lost for the Opera Centre to start before the property crash is a good example. Had the Local Authority applied the same standards set by An Bord Pleanála on the developer then this project would have been long started.

I personally have no problem with rolling out red carpets to developers willing to invest in the city. With 15,877 people signing on up in Dominic Street needing work and the city centres future is dogged with set backs. Therefore I can’t share your “Schadenfreude” on the Limerick Boat Club outcome because nothing ventured, nothing gained.

hi CologneMike. I’ve no particular personal agenda against Kiely. I do follow local politics closely though and I think most of our elected reps are a poor show, especially when it comes to matters concerning the long term viability of the city. Kiely is amongst the worst of them. Proof can be found any time he opens his mouth.

As one of the 15,877 people signing on in Dominic Street, I am well aware that the city needs investment, but i don’t agree with unregulated or poorly planned development. Kiely does. My own job was with a company that could well have survived if the Boat Club project went ahead at an earlier date. Schadenfreude couldn’t be further from the mark.

It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry when you listen to the numerous Councillor’s who have come out and lambasted ABP over the last couple of years. There is certainly an embarrassing dearth of political talent on the City Council. The majority of them (with a few notable exceptions) seem to be more interested in donning those stupid robes and collecting their generous salaries than actually working for the betterment of the city.

Having said that, the unelected hierarchy in City Hall, The City Manager, various Director’s of Service etc arent any less incompetent it seems. I would be inclined to agree with zulutango in expressing reservations over their ability to bring this city forward. It’s just been one gaffe after another at this stage.

CologneMike’s point about the opera centre is a good one. I have criticised the developers behind the project on numerous occasions but ultimately the buck stops with the City Council. Unfortunately, their handling of the planning process has been a disgrace.

One just needs to cast their mind back to the original grant in 2006 and the absolutely astonishing amount of demolition that it permitted. The same mistakes were repeated last Summer with the revised application. Had they laid down the law to the developers from the very outset, we wouldn’t be in this shameful situation where Patrick Street/Rutland Street are inching closer to dereliction with each passing day!:mad:

The opera centre should have been the catalyst for the revival of the City Centre but instead it’s dying a slow death. Walking up O’ Connell Street at the moment can be a pretty demoralising experience given the vast swathe of empty shops, of course the general air of shabbyness and neglect dosent help matters either.

Just on that very point, where exactly is the promised revamp of our main thoroughfare? It was first mooted in 2001 yet here we are almost nine years later and nothing has been done! As usual with Limerick City Council, it’s a case of all talk and no action!:(

Just in relation to Kevin Kiely’s recent pro development sentiments. I thought I would bring this to the attention of contributors.

03471

Mr. Kevin Kiely

Permission for 1. demolish existing Treaty Bar premises and houses nos. 27 and 28 to laneway. 2. Construct a new mixed commercial/residential development comprising basement car park, ground floor commercial unit, 13 no. apartments at first, second, third and fourth floors respectively, with all ancillary site works and connections to public services.

The Treaty Bar &, Nos. 27 and 28 , Old Thomondgate,, Limerick.

CONDITIONAL 15/3/2005

How about that for a “contribution” to an historically sensitive area of the city?:eek:

@Tuborg wrote:

Just in relation to Kevin Kiely’s recent pro development sentiments. I thought I would bring this to the attention of contributors.

O.K. o.k. I now know who we are talking about.

If my memory serves me right . . . . . . was his brother not the sole objector to Thomond Park in the end? 😮

09221

Marine Pine Ltd

Permission for demolition of the existing shop and amusement hall at 42 & 42 Parnell Street and for the construction of a 3 storey building (1644.05 sq.m) yard and associated site works. The new building will contain a coffee shop, merchandising retail area, amusement hall, courtyard and putting green at ground floor level, a snooker club at first floor level and a cinemaette, an international sports museum and associated offices at second floor level.

42/43 Parnell Street, Limerick,

Decision Due Date: 22/10/2009

I dug out a few images of the plans. Check out the flamboyant facade!:eek:

An international sports museum? What the?

I like the look of it. But i know that given it’s location and it’s stated function, that it will, quite simply, be a dive.

Who’s behind it?

@zulutango wrote:

I like the look of it. But i know that given it’s location and it’s stated function, that it will, quite simply, be a dive.

Who’s behind it?

Yeah, those kind of facilities don’t usually enjoy the best of reputations. Nothing stopping this becoming a success though, provided it’s run properly and it gets planning permission of course!

The name on the application is Murrough O’ Byrne, the architects are Arnold Leahy.

Larger images

Well at least someone trying finally to do something with Parnell St, It has so much potential,

It certainly does, and whatever about the nature of the establishment, Parnell Street would lose its character if there is anything other than incremental change. Despite the falling apart look and the tacky shopfronts, it is always bustling with activity and many places doing a lot of business. The city needs these lower rent areas.

The focus should really be on sprucing the street up rather than getting some mega-development in there (as was I think suggested for Upper Gerald Griffen Street). Knocking it all would just do away with an authentic piece of Limerick. As it is, I prefer the run down old shops on the north side of the street to the hideous 1980s building on the south side of it.

One could provide a pedestrian-friendly corridor between the top of Thomas Street and the station/People’s Park. As it is, it is usually crazy busy with pedestrians doing exactly that route – along Wickham and Parnell Streets. Anyone who hasn’t done so should take a walk along these streets and take in the down-to-earth environment (and for all the run-down state – a vast contrast to e.g. King’s Island). I always include People’s Park to St. John’s Square (via Tait Clock/Davis Street) if I am bringing someone on a walking tour of Limerick.

The proposed building looks like it will fit in very well with the likes of the railway hotel, and will spruce up the street without really being of a different character.

Belltable Arts Centre, 69 O’Connell Street, Limerick.

Removal/replacement of roof and theatre interior, renovation of front of house/gallery café/bar areas, formation of enlarged opening and all associated site works.(Protected Structure)

Decision: Grant permission with revised conditions

Inspector’s Report

@Tuborg wrote:

09221

Marine Pine Ltd

Permission for demolition of the existing shop and amusement hall at 42 & 42 Parnell Street and for the construction of a 3 storey building (1644.05 sq.m) yard and associated site works. The new building will contain a coffee shop, merchandising retail area, amusement hall, courtyard and putting green at ground floor level, a snooker club at first floor level and a cinemaette, an international sports museum and associated offices at second floor level.

42/43 Parnell Street, Limerick,

Decision Due Date: 22/10/2009

This one has gone for further information. Out of sheer boredom, I had a read of the planning report, which left me rather confused!

Here is an extract from the Planning Assessment section;

Design & Streetscape

It is considered that the proposed design of the new three storey building is acceptable being a sympathetic balance of traditional references taken from the Railway Hotel (a Protected Structure) and modern design with large glazing panels and recessed balconies on the 1st floor. Traditional references includes the arches and plaster detailing on the parapet of the new building which are considered acceptable in the streetscape context providing visual interest and a high quality redevelopment of a currently derelict and underutilised site.

The report also goes on to say that “the designs as submitted have been agreed through pre-planning discussions”.

However, the Further Information request contains the following;

The design of the proposed development appears to be incongruous with it’s surroundings and is not acceptable. The applicant is requested to justify the design proposed or submit a revised design.

Well, which is it?:confused:

Clearly decisiveness is not one of their strong points in the planning office :rolleyes:

Planning for 178 houses in Croom

http://www.omg.ie/property/croom-co-limerick/427/description.html

08188

Sarsfield Credit Union

Planning permission to renovate, refurbish and & extend the former Limerick Savings Bank

Glentworth Street/Catherine Street, Limerick

Grant Date: 23/12/2008

It’s basically a year now since this application was finalised but because the planning files were not available online at the time, it sort of slipped under the radar a bit. Anyway, it turns out the application is a lot more significant than originally thought!

Sarsfield Credit Union bought the “stone jug” a couple of years back and plan to use it as their new headquarters.

The development consists of the refurbishment of the existing bank building, repair, re-pointing of stonework, new natural slate roof etc. Removal of the render from the adjoining office building along with a general refurbishment.

The most striking and controversial aspect of all this though is the addition of a new 3 storey limestone clad structure, to be built on the small courtyard adjacent to the bank.

So is this an absolute atrocity against a most fascinating little building or will it plug a perceived gap in the streetscape and also cover up the ugly blank wall of the adjoining apartment block?

@Tuborg wrote:

It’s basically a year now since this application was finalised but because the planning files were not available online at the time, it sort of slipped under the radar a bit. Anyway, it turns out the application is a lot more significant than originally thought!

Sarsfield Credit Union bought the “stone jug” a couple of years back and plan to use it as their new headquarters.

The development consists of the refurbishment of the existing bank building, repair, re-pointing of stonework, new natural slate roof etc. Removal of the render from the adjoining office building along with a general refurbishment.

The most striking and controversial aspect of all this though is the addition of a new 3 storey limestone clad structure, to be built on the small courtyard adjacent to the bank.

So is this an absolute atrocity against a most fascinating little building or will it plug a perceived gap in the streetscape and also cover up the ugly blank wall of the adjoining apartment block?

This site was wrong for the bank building from day 1 -150 years or more ago – it would be difficult I think to build anything beside it that could be sympathetic to the old building.What’s on the plans looks so-so … sadly what looks only ok on paper can look total cack once built… IMHO !

Which design was approved? Above or below?

I’d be concerned about that glass panelling/fence around the outside to be honest. As regards the carbuncle, well, it’s not likely to be very obvious given its overshadowing by the far larger monster beside it, and it is not sufficiently large (IMO) to overshadow the old bank.

The old bank is pretty odd, and I don’t know that it would deserve a more careful “showcasing” – as long as it is kept and used, that’s probably the main thing – however eccentric it is or not in line with the streetscape it’s a part of the city. Given the recent vandalism, I’d be happy to see it used again (presumably an occupant would be quicker to rectify the results of any vandalism).

The colour of the carbuncle probably matters a lot given the definite fairly dark (esp in rain) stone of the old bank, and the light colours of the monster apartment carbuncle on the other side of the spare site.

@CologneMike wrote:

Which design was approved? Above or below?

All those images were taken from the further information submitted by the architects. However it seems that a slight tweaking of the design took place on the instructions of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The approved design is the one below.

@KeepAnEyeOnBob wrote:

I’d be concerned about that glass panelling/fence around the outside to be honest.

Those glazing panels are a disappointing feature alrite. Sarsfield Credit Union state that they are merely to protect the building from vandalism and anti-social behaviour, which to be fair has been a big issue over the last year or so.

Although it is pretty disheartening that they seem to regard barricading the building off as the only solution to the problem!

@Tuborg wrote:

All those images were taken from the further information submitted by the architects. However it seems that a slight tweaking of the design took place on the instructions of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

The approved design is the one below.

From this perspective below, I personally would have preferred their first design.

@Tuborg wrote:

Those glazing panels are a disappointing feature alrite. Sarsfield Credit Union state that they are merely to protect the building from vandalism and anti-social behaviour, which to be fair has been a big issue over the last year or so.

Although it is pretty disheartening that they seem to regard barricading the building off as the only solution to the problem!

It seems the glazed railing to the front of the building was refused but was granted along the Catherine Street side.

Condition 22

Prior to the commencement of any development on site, the Applicant shall submit revised plans and elevations to the Planning Authority for written agreement, indicating the following:

(a) The removal of the glazed railing proposed along the front of the Protected Structure (main entrance).

(b) A revised proposal for the glazed railing along the side elevation of the Protected Structure facing onto Catherine Street. The glazing rail at this location shall terminate in line with the front elevation facing onto Glentworth Street.

@KeepAnEyeOnBob wrote:

The colour of the carbuncle probably matters a lot given the definite fairly dark (esp in rain) stone of the old bank, and the light colours of the monster apartment carbuncle on the other side of the spare site.

Looks like it’s going to be a mixture of limestone cladding, a bit of stainless steel cladding and a opaque glazed skin.

Speaking of carbuncles, there is one horrible wart in the form an ESB pole with extra thick cables that disfigures the whole corner. 😡

It will be interesting to see how they will repair the scarred limestone from previous changes of signage.

The pebbledash rendered facade of the rear building will be removed thus exposing the original brickwork.

The drawings seem to show how the three buildings are to be connected under one glass roof?

By the way how does the new Bank of Ireland facade on O’Connell Street fare out? Any images about?

@CologneMike wrote:

Looks like it’s going to be a mixture of limestone cladding, a bit of stainless steel cladding and a opaque glazed skin.

I’d have thought that the brief here would have been to make this new extension as understated as possible. Unfortunately any new structure is going to impact negatively on the bank. But one would have thought that all parties involved would have strived to negate this impact in so far as was possible!

To my untrained eye anyway, the revised design is more elaborate than the original, especially the front elevation with it’s extensive use of glazing! :confused:

Speaking of carbuncles, there is one horrible wart in the form an ESB pole with extra thick cables that disfigures the whole corner. 😡

It’s absolutely pathetic isnt it? To think that its almost 2010 and this remains the ESB’s method of running electrical cables through the city streets! They should have been undergrounded years ago! 😮

I can’t understand either why the Baker Place public realm works were not extended down as far as the bank corner at the time. As it is, the horrible poured concrete footpath, incredibly obtrusive ESB pole and haphazard car parking make for a fairly dismal setting! 🙁

@CologneMike wrote:

By the way how does the new Bank of Ireland facade on O’Connell Street fare out? Any images about?

They put the finishing touches to it last week.

Obviously it’s a major improvemet on the original but nothing special either. It’s extremely “corporate” looking and would probably be more suited to an office park rather than the city centre.

The new granite clad facade has looked sharp enough in the recent bright, frosty weather but other elements such as the glazing and signage look pretty cheap in my opinion. It’s early days yet though, it might grow on me eventually!

@Tuborg wrote:

It’s extremely “corporate” looking and would probably be more suited to an office park rather than the city centre.

To the point!

Especially as it occupies a prime corner on the new pedestrian thoroughfare of the city centre.

See previous images 2291 and 2063

I didn’t know they were moving the prison to O Connell Street.. Sad to see red brick being replaced for dull grey facades on the main street of limerick. If it was up to me I would try keep the coherency of the street by spending a bit of cash restoring and cleaning current red brick buildings and imposing guidelines enduring that they never get plastered/painted over or demolished in favor of concrete/lime facades.

@tretle wrote:

I didn’t know they were moving the prison to O Connell Street.. Sad to see red brick being replaced for dull grey facades on the main street of limerick. If it was up to me I would try keep the coherency of the street by spending a bit of cash restoring and cleaning current red brick buildings and imposing guidelines enduring that they never get plastered/painted over or demolished in favor of concrete/lime facades.

They could have gotten an elephant to take a steaming dump on the location of this bank, and it would’ve been better than what was there. Though mediocre, this is a vast improvement at relatively little cost.

@rumpelstiltskin wrote:

They could have gotten an elephant to take a steaming dump on the location of this bank, and it would’ve been better than what was there. Though mediocre, this is a vast improvement at relatively little cost.

Sorry but I guess we will have to disagree.. I was not a fan of what was there before but what they replaced it with is disgraceful. It makes me wonder how the hanging gardens development was refused when they let something like this through.
Think it looks ok now? Let it age a small bit. This thing wont age well at all, it will only get closer to looking like a prison as the years go by.

I do find this not great for recladding and as a make over.

That grey sharp flat exterior is far to over bearing. It’s not acceptable in my books!

Tretle, the Bank of Ireland is just an early 1970s office building that has had it’s dated facade removed and been re-faced in granite. I must admit I was hoping for slightly better but the revamped exterior is still a massive improvement on the previous rubbish!

Bank of Ireland originally occupied just a single building at the corner of O’Connell Street/Bedford Row. In or around 1970, they bought up and demolished a number of premises on both streets to expand their business.

Also, the hanging gardens development wasn’t refused, it was under construction for over a year until those behind it ran out of cash!

Ardhu House / Clarion Hotel Suites site

08489

Budelli Construction Limited

For the construction of modifications and amendments to the permitted mixed use tourism, commercial, recreational and residential development granted under planning ref:P.04/01 (An Bord Pleanala ref: PL30.212383) to provide for (1) a reduction in permitted residential units by way of: (i) the replacement of permitted ‘Villa C (comprising 15 units, 3 storeys over basement) with proposed 28 no. apartments; (ii) the replacement of ‘Vill E’ (comprising 15 units, 3 storeys over basement) with proposed 5 no. detached 2 storey residential units with new vehicular entrances onto Roses Avenue; (iii) the replacement of ‘Aparthotel Block B’ (comprising 24 no. units) with proposed 11 no. three storey town houses. (2). revised site layout plan to take account of aforementioned amendments; (3) revised basement level car parking layout and access arrangement and (4) revised and modified landscaping and boundary treatments and (5) all ancillary site development works. The proposed development is within the curtilage of a Protected Structure.

Ennis Road, Roses Avenue, North Circular Road, Limerick

Granted by Limerick City Council on 27/11/2009, it’s now been appealed to An Bord Pleanala.

This saga has been dragging on for 6/7 years at this rate. Back in 2004, Budelli proposed a much larger development that was eventually passed by ABP but with significant alterations.

09315

Bellisle Properties Ltd

Permission for the demolition of 2 no. semi-detached bungalow houses, and for the construction of an entrance, 34 no. terraced townhouses, 13 no. apartments, alterations to the public road including realignment and provision of 14 no. additional angled car parking spaces and all associated site works

Lynwood Park, Singland, Limerick

Decision Due Date: 13/2/2010

They’re definitely trying to squeeze in as many units as possible between the existing Lynwood Park estate and the railway line. Maybe if we had a similar level of residential density along the railway lines in the city, some form of light rail system might just be viable!

Bedford Row ~ Central and Bank of Ireland Buildings

@PoxyShamrock wrote:

(November 2008) I was passing this “landmark” development this morning and noticed that the white exterior just above the doors is going green already! It’s not even a year old.
Can’t believe these are allowed to sort of things are allowed to be built without having tenants secured.

@KeepAnEyeOnBob wrote:

I noticed that myself, looks pretty ugly, much worse than in the photo. A lot of these new buildings seem to have taken no account of the local climate and propensity for algae to grow and dirt/grime to build up anywhere where there is water allowed to flow down the face of a building.

It seems to be getting greener by the year! 😮 That’s certainly not going to help let this building (Former Grand Central). See image from Gillece

@Tuborg wrote:

@CologneMike wrote:

By the way how does the new Bank of Ireland facade on O’Connell Street fare out? Any images about?

They put the finishing touches to it last week.

Obviously it’s a major improvement on the original but nothing special either. It’s extremely “corporate” looking and would probably be more suited to an office park rather than the city centre.

The new granite clad facade has looked sharp enough in the recent bright, frosty weather but other elements such as the glazing and signage look pretty cheap in my opinion. It’s early days yet though, it might grow on me eventually!

View of the new Bank of Ireland from Bedford Row. It would be nice to see a brighter picture of it.

One can already see the dirty water marks from the lack of thought to water disposal from the window “ledges” on the new BoI building. Agree that the windows look cheap. In fact I do think that once the new facade is not “new”, it may actually be worse-looking than the old facade, much as the old one was an out-dated style. I guess it fits in well with the Brown Thomas building and the like, but I hate that monotone box-like look. Anyway, I give it as little as two or three years before the BoI building really looks dreary and drab and fits in perfectly – unless they plan to scrub the walls regularly.

Yes you can say the environment isn’t the fault of the building, but I do believe that materials and design should be chosen to account for the environment.

[align=center:2rfrdaac][/align:2rfrdaac]Its about maintenance I think – if the bank keeps the facade clean it will look ok. What is good imo is that the colour / finish of the facade reflects light which brightens up the street.Many of our red brick Georgian streets are depresssingly dark at night time – Im sure some student has done a thesis about how materials and lighting affect the atmosphere/mood of a street.

[align=right:2rfrdaac][/align:2rfrdaac]

Planners told of housing concerns (Irish Examiner)

By Jimmy Woulfe, Mid-West Correspondent

INDEPENDENT planning experts have welcomed a move to open up dialogue with architects and others involved in house design.

Up to 60 architects, draftsmen and house designers attended a meeting called by Limerick County Council’s planning department.

Architect Michael Healy, who worked on the design of JP McManus’s €100 million mansion, said the group was able to put concerns by clients to the planners.

Mr Healy said: “This was a positive initiative from the council’s planning department to invite agents to a meeting. As a result it was decided that a group representing agents will meet regularly with planners to discuss issues when resolved and which would benefit the planning process.”

He said a forum would be set up at which agents and planners can discuss issues and give feedback.

Cllr Jerome Scanlan, a strong critic of the council’s planning department, said there was a problem with regard to getting planning for rural one-off houses in Co Limerick.

He said: “The planners are doing everything in their power to block one-off rural housing. There is a need for one-off rural housing and Limerick County Council are unreasonable in these planning applications.”

Cllr Scanlan claimed council bureaucracy was leading to unnecessary delays in processing planning applications. He added problems also arose where people apply for planning adjacent to a roadway.

He added problems also arose where people apply for planning adjacent to a roadway.

From a road safety point of view it makes sense to me.

How many rural roads have crazy speed (80-100kph) signs on them?

The whole issue of assessing proper speed limits for each stretch of these minor rural roads should be addressed first by the local authority.

As it is, just stringing a pearl of one-off houses along these minor rural roads is reckless enough.

Yeah that’s just what we need, more unsustainable rural housing, making it even more difficult to provide viable services. This urbanisation of the countryside really has to stop!

I’ve often heard Limerick County Councillors peddling the myth that somehow Limerick is a difficult place to gain permission for a one off house. Sadly the reality is very different. All one needs to do is to take a trip back to west Limerick in particular to see the unpleasant effects of this misguided practice.

Apparently they don’t see anything wrong in destroying regional roads with private accesses either! :rolleyes: