CMX development at listed site refused planning
Derryolam Glebe House was previously used as offices.
An application to build a new housing development on the site of a former rectory in Carrickmacross has been refused by planners in Monaghan.
The application to construct 18 dwelling units through the change of use of the listed four-storey Derryolam Glebe House on the Shercock Road was turned down last week.
Planning submitted by Emmet Rogers outlined building three two-bed apartments and one studio style apartment, together with one two-storey three-bed detached dwelling, four two-storey three-bed semi-detached dwellings, and four two-storey four-bed semi-detached dwellings.
The submission also included build five two-storey two-bed terraced dwellings, along with the demolition of existing derelict stone shed, the provision of car parking and all ancillary works including boundary fencing, footpaths and street lighting, connection to existing public foul drainage and storm drainage.
It was proposed to reuse the existing pedestrian access onto Shercock Road.
Derryolam Glebe House was previously used as offices.
Built circa 1780, the property is listed as a Protected Structure in the Monaghan County Council Development Plan and the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage.
In refusing the application, the Council claimed that Mr Rogers failed to provide any “justification” for the proposed demolition of the existing stone shed, which is also a protected structure given its location within the curtilage of Glebe House.
They added that any new development proposed should be “sympathetic” to the existing structure, and noted that if the plans were allowed as stated, it would have an “adverse impact” on the special historical interest of the property.
In assessing the proposed plans, the Council said the applicant had “failed to provide” sufficient information, by way of an Architectural Impact Statement or Conservation Plan, adding that a portion of the application site is zoned as ‘Landscape Protection/Conservation’ and granting otherwise would conflict with the Monaghan County Development Plan 2019-2025.
Other concerns highlighted by the Council in their assessment regarded proper planning and sustainable development of the area, the prevention of localised flooding, road safety, and build heritage.
“Accordingly, if permitted as proposed, the development would (i) materially conflict with the Monaghan County Development Plan 2019-2025 and (ii) be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”