Plans to turn protected former Tipperary barber shop into two-bedroom home refused
Plans to turn a protected former barber shop in Thurles into a two-bedroom home have been refused by Tipperary County Council.
Gary Loughnane applied to the council for permission to change the use of a protected former barber shop and retail outlet in Parnell Street in the town into residential accommodation.
The vacant premises on Parnell Street had been earmarked for conversion into a two-bedroom home, but council planners said the conservation plans submitted for the building had “shortcomings”.
According to planning files, the building is currently empty, and would be turned into a two-bedroom home if permission was granted.
However, council planners said that an architectural heritage impact assessment (AHIA) report submitted as part of a further information request in the planning application had “shortcomings” and that the proposed list of conservation works on the building is not acceptable.
“It is noted that [the report] includes a number of contradictions including that in relation to works to the external elements of the building in the AHIA, whereas the cover letter states that no works will be undertaken to the front façade of the building,” council planners said.
In particular, the council’s conservation officer raised concerns about proposed internal alterations, including the removal of existing materials, lining of walls and installation of new partitions, as well as works needed to bring the building up to modern standards for accessibility, energy efficiency and fire safety.
The conservation officer added that no conservation methodology to preserve elements of the protected building had been provided, and they also said it was not possible to establish from the application whether the proposed change from retail to residential use would be appropriate for the protected building.
“The proposal does not include all works which would be necessary to upgrade the building for modern residential use such as the repairs to the chimney, front façade or the defects in the valleys to the rear extension,” the planner said in their report.
Planners agreed with the conservation officer and said that because of this, planning permission should be refused for the change of use.
They said that to grant permission “would not result in the sympathetic restoration, re-use and maintenance of the building”.
“The proposal, if permitted, would create an undesirable precedent for similar proposals of this nature and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area,” planners added.