Permission refused for altered roof at former Tipperary filling station
Planning permission for roof alterations at a Tipperary shop has been refused by An Coimisiún Pleanála despite its own inspector recommending that the development be retained.
Ed Hogan and Maria Meany had been refused retention permission by Tipperary County Council for changes to the roof at the AM-PM Store at Greenside South, Carrick-on-Suir.
They applied for retention permission for an external refrigeration unit and to retain indefinitely the roof as constructed which differs from what was allowed under a previous planning permission.
They also sought permission for double-doors and the erection of high screen wall for an upstairs apartment.
Retention planning permission is sought when works have already been carried out and the applicant wishes to keep it
Tipperary County Council refused permission, saying that the roof that has been installed is of “poor aesthetic quality” and is “wholly inappropriate and significantly detracts from the visual character of the area.”
“In addition to the modification to the roof, the external canopy and petrol pumps were removed from the site. These works were not permitted under the parent application and were not included for in the current application. As such the proposal, if permitted, would be facilitated by unauthorised development,” the council added in their decision.
The main issue centred on the appearance of the altered roof and apartment extension, which planners said failed to meet acceptable design standards.
Mr Hogan and Ms Meany appealed the council’s decision to An Coimisiún Pleanála, saying that the planned apartment is for their daughter, and that what the council stipulated for the roof would not work due to the building’s structure.
“On the closer examination of the roof, it was established that in this case the configuration of the gambrel roof will not work because with no tie at the base and no structural ridge beam, the roof geometry generates significant horizontal thrust at the eaves, that has no defined load path,” an agent working on behalf of the applicants said.
This means that the roof would not be able to support itself if it was installed as required by the planning permission.
“Even if steel members themselves are strong enough in bending, the lack of restraint makes the system structurally unstable,” the agent added.
The agent also explained that the proposed double doors were for access from the apartment to the outside space, while the screen wall aims to provide privacy and reduce any discomfort from wind and rain.
An inspector for An Coimisiún Pleanála recommended that retention planning permission be granted saying that the street holds “little architectural merit.”
“The streetscape is nondescript and open in nature,” the inspector said. “The park holds visual townscape qualities due to the crescent residential layout.
“However, the subject site both before and after the development was carried out on site, contributes little or nothing to the streetscape qualities of the area,” they added.
While a slate roof on the development would have been more in keeping with what is already seen in the area, the inspector said that because the building is commercial, and had been a filling station for a number of years, the general appearance has been commercial for a long period of time.
The inspector added that the screen wall will not result in any loss of privacy, and that some overlooking is normal for an urban or suburban area.
However, despite this, the commission decided against their inspector, and ruled that planning permission for the development should be refused.
“It is considered that the proposed development and the development proposed to be retained at roof level does not achieve an acceptable standard of architectural design,” the commission said.
“In particular, the residential unit external walls and roof, both finished in composite metal cladding would result in a poor aesthetic design response and would appear an unsympathetic and visual incongruous addition.
“Accordingly, the development would seriously detract from the visual character and amenities of the area, would conflict with the Carrick-on-Suir Local Area Plan, and would if permitted set an undesirable precedent for other such similar substandard developments,” they added.