‘Overbearing’ town centre development refused

Anton McNulty

THE proposal to demolish a building in the centre of Castlebar and replace it with a three storey mixed use development was refused as it would have ‘an overbearing impact on the exiting streetscape’.
Castlebar-based company, Jackita Ltd had sought permission to demolish two existing retail units on Main Street, Castlebar and replace them with a new three story mixed use development.
The existing building is currently occupied by the Storehouse Cafe and the Podi footcare specialists, and the proposal was to replace them with a ground floor retail unit, a first floor café and second floor office accomodation.
The planning office of Mayo County Council expressed concern over the design of the façade of the new building and requested that the façade be replaced ‘like for like’. When the applicants failed to make the necessary amendments to the design, the Council refused planning permission stating that proposed development will be ‘out of character with the existing streetscape’.
Padraig Kelly, the Executive Architect with Mayo County Council stated during the application process that there were no issues over the proposed mixed use development but he did have concerns over the the demolition of the front façade.
“I have concerns regarding the loss of historic fabric and in particular the proposed demolition of the front façade. I therefore recommend that the existing façade be retained / partially retained and incorporated into the design,” he wrote.
‘Extensive movement’
A structural engineer’s report was submitted on behalf of the applicants by David O’Malley and Associates where they stated that ‘due to extensive movement and structural cracking’ it was not possible to repair or retain this element of the structure.
An architectural impact statement prepared by Taylor Architects concluded that the building is unsafe and in a poor condition and should be demolished.
Mayo County Council stated they were dissatisfied with the report by David O’Malley as he was not a conservation engineer and it was of their opinion that the report ‘must be carried out by an accredited Conservation Engineer practising in the field of conservation’.
The applicants contested that a conservation structural engineer’s report was unwarranted but submitted a second report from SDS Structural Design Solutions who recommended the building be demolished in its entirety.
The applicants did submit ‘slight amendments’ to the the front façade but Mayo County Council sought revised plans and elevations detailing a rebuild which ‘replaces like with like’.
In reply to the Council’s request, the applicants stated that the current proposal reflects the character of the street and they cannot propose a like for like rebuild.
The building in question is not a protected structure but Mayo County Council stated that they felt the ‘location of the building in such a prominent streetscape cannot be ignored’. In refusing the application, the Council stated that the proposed height, bulk and fenestration of the development would have ‘an overbearing impact on the exiting streetscape’.