Praxiteles

@ake wrote:

But still, it has that lovely ancient limestone glisten…

No. The “I would not think so” = “I think you are right. It does look original”.

If I am not mistaken, this church originally had a magnificent reredos whch obviously has been sdismanled and scattered about.

We have already seen all the reasond rendering the location of the baptismal font next tot he altar a idiculous arrangement.

BTW:
Take note of this phrase: “or a relevant element of the structure”! That could indeed have interesting consequences and knock on affects.

BUT once they had decided that the proposed development WOULD MATERIALLY AFFECT the character of the structure OR a relevant element of the structure, they were NOT ENTITLED to have further regard to the liturgical requirements of worship. In particular, they were not entitled effectively to imply AN ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION not provided for in the legislation on the grounds that the works in question were necessitated by the liturgical requirements of worship.

For instances, Cork County Council gave a grant of planning permission in 2006 [Pl no. 05/7851] permitting the demolition of part of the sacristy of St. Joseph’s Church, Liscarroll, Co. Cork seemingly contrary to the tenor of Section 57.10.b of the Planning and Development Act which prohibita any loacl authority and ABP on appeal from granting permission for the demolition [partial or otherwise] of a protected structure. Now, how come Cork County Council thought nothing of granting permission for the partial demolition of the Liscarroll sacristy when such was going to have an obvious affect on the character and other relevant elements of a protected structure?

@ake wrote:

thanks!

But doesn’t that mean, by s.57, of the 2000 act, there must be a virtual moratorium on all re-ordering? What was the law before this?

The problems up to now were:

1. An over-willing Minister for the Environment in Martin Cullen who was quite prepared to re-write chapter 5 of the Architectural Guidelines to the Planning and Development Act 2000 so as to accomodate Bishop McGhee and Paddy Jones in the plans to wreck Cobh Cathedral. Indeed. Mr. Cullen was so willing that he acted ultra vires in slipping in an extra ground for exemptions from planning permission in his Guidelines. Accorcing to the High Court the minister acted ultra vires in putting that into the Guidelines.

2. There has been too great a willingness on the part of some Planning Authorities to give Declarations of exemption willy-nilly fopr all sorts of works to be carried out to churches whether or not those works affected the historical character of those churches. Take, for example, the Church of the Immaculate Conception in Kanturk, Co. Cork where over Euros 1 million have been spent on all sorts of works carried out tot he church on the basis of Declarations of exemption. In this scenario of things, the wreckers had practical carte blanche in any willing Local Authority Area. With the quashing of Article 5.2.3 of the Guidelines, this particularly smutty little back-door has been closed. In future, anything regarded as affecting the character of a protected structure will require a Planning Application and which will bring with it the possibility of public scrutiny and the the possibility of submissions from the public and the possibility of appeals and the possibility of judicial reviews.

That plus the ABP ruling on Cobh Cathedral should go quite a way in giving greater protection to the bits and pieces still left of ecclesiastical architecture in the country.

Let us summarizes matters as follows:

1. The Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in December, 2004 provided for PAs to issue DECLARATIONS of EXEMPTION permitting development in protected structures used as places of worship EVEN if that development materially affected the character of the ctructure OR any element of it that contributed to its special interest etc.

2. Howvever, s. 57(1) of Planning and Development Act 2000 is a stand alone provision and crystal clear in its terms. It provides that the carrying out of works to a protected structure shall be exempted development ONLY if those works would NOT MATERIALLY AFFECT the character of the structure OR any element of the structure which contributes to its special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest.

3. The Planning Authority, and indeed An Bord Pleanála, were perfectly entitled, and perhaps even obliged, in the context of a s. 5 reference, to respect liturgical requirements, in considering the question as to whether or not the works would materially affect the character of the structure or a relevant element of the structure. BUT once they had decided that the proposed development WOULD MATERIALLY AFFECT the character of the structure OR a relevant element of the structure, they were NOT ENTITLED to have further regard to the liturgical requirements of worship. In particular, they were not entitled effectively to imply AN ADDITIONAL EXEMPTION not provided for in the legislation on the grounds that the works in question were necessitated by the liturgical requirements of worship.

4. It is clear that An Bord Pleanála took into account the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in December, 2004 in arriving at the decision that it did. HOWEVER, section 5.2 of those Guidelines which section is entitled “Respecting Liturgical Requirements”, MISSTATES THE LAW in para. 5.2.3 thereof.

5. While it is legitimate, and indeed appropriate, to take into account liturgical requirements in deciding whether or not the character of the structure is materially affected by works, once a view is taken that the character of the structure is in fact materially affected by works, the planning authority has no choice but to apply s. 57(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 which is clear and unequivocal in its terms.

6. Consequently, the High Court took the view that the sentence in paragraph 5.2.3 of the Minister’s 2004 guidelines with regard to respecting liturgical requirements to the effect that “In relation to declarations, this may mean that some works which are necessitated by liturgical requirements and which have a material affect on the character of the structure do not require planning permission” IS INCORRECT IN LAW and the law must be upheld and applied as it is

The long and the short of this is that there will fewer Declarations granted by PAs and for works like gutting a sanctuaruy to install a new altar, Planning Permission must be sought!!

@Rhabanus wrote:

I know the Four Evangelists.

Who are the Four Masters who figure on the pulpit?

Try this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_of_the_Four_Masters

Letterkenny Cathedral

The fomous Four Masters Pulpit.

@Fearg wrote:

Found one on Wiki – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Stations-of-the-cross-lk-cath.jpg

Looking at the Stations again in the photographs, it seems to me they are hung too high leaving too much blank wall below them.

@Fearg wrote:

Found one on Wiki – http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f8/Stations-of-the-cross-lk-cath.jpg

I wonder hwo are they by?

@Antipodes wrote:

Pugin’s font at St Michael’s, Gorey, has been standing outside the sacristy in the weather for who knows how long. It is a beautifully simple but harmoniously proportioned work similar to a later Pugin font in St Mary’s, Brewood, Staffordshire. Its replacement, a Belgian font from the late 1850s, can be seen in the grounds of the presbytery.

Now, I wonder what Wexford County Council’s Conservation officer is doing about that?