This article is from page 16 of the 2008-03-04 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 16 JPG
A CONTENTIOUS plan by a vol- untary housing association looks set once more to be refused by Ennis Town Council unless it is radically Karel Ceeren
Already, Cluid Housing Associa- tion has been refused planning per- mission for a five-storey apartment block adjacent to Ennis Tennis and Badmintion Club.
The proposal involved plans to con- struct 21 one-bedroom apartments and six two-bedroom apartments.
However, the Dublin-based housing association scaled back its plans and is now seeking permission to con-
struct three- and four-storey build- ings in the grounds of Waterville House to accommodate 14 one-bed- room apartments and three two-bed- room apartments.
The proposal has provoked re- newed opposition from the Ennis Tennis and Badminton Club and now putting a large question mark on the project in its current form, the council state, “The construction of two four- and three-storey concrete apartment blocks in the front gar- den of this important 18th- or early 19th-century Georgian house will, if permitted, result in diminishing the importance, character and integ- rity of the Protected Structure due to
their bulk and height, design and use of unsympathetic materials.”
The council point out, “The pro- posed floor area will take up most of the front garden, which was origi- nally designed to provide a tranquil setting for the house.”
The council considers, “that the proposed development is too dense. The density comparisons made by you are not appropriate because the other sites, unlike the subject site, do not contain protected structures and as such do not incur the same con- straints.”
The council “considers that “Block A’ should be omitted and “Block B’ be relocated to the area previously
occupied by it. please submit your proposals to reduce density.”
It goes on, “The council has no ob- jection in principle to change of use of Waterville house provided that such a change of use would not re- quire significant interventions or ma- terial alterations which might affect the character or historic fabric of the Protected Structure.
“However, it appears that it 1s pro- posed to totally remove the historic interior of the Protected Structure and install concrete stairs and floors. Such a proposal would result in the loss of all items of architectural and historic interest and be totally inappropriate treatment for such a building.
“It appears that it is proposed to de- molish the stone coach houses, which have been a feature of the streetscape for centuries. By this simple design and use of natural, local materials, this structure makes a positive con- tribution to both the ACA and Pro- tected Structure.
“The refitting of this building for a residential use would not be a mat- ter of serious concern but its demol1- tion, together with its adjoining ash- lar gate-piers, appears inappropriate and would result in a serious loss of character and would materially contravene development plan policy in relation to the demolition in the ACA.”