Architectural Heritage Protection: Guidelines for Planning Authorities

1. Page 201

   Cite this pagePDF p. 201 (opens the publisher’s copy in a new tab)
   Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities 199 CHAPTER 13 CURTILAGE AND ATTENDANT GROUNDS 13.5 Development within the Curtilage of a Protected Structure 13.5.1 Proposals for new development within the curtilage of a protected structure should be carefully scrutinised by the planning authority, as inappropriate development will be detrimental to the character of the structure. 13.5.2 Where a formal relationship exists between a protected structure and its ancillary buildings or features, new construction which interrupts that relationship should rarely be permitted. There may be a designed vista between a building and a built or landscape feature within its gardens or a less formal relationship between a house and its outbuildings. Similarly, the relationship between the protected structure and the street should not be damaged. New works should not adversely impact on views of the principal elevations of the protected structure. 13.5.3 Where a large house or an institutional building has a garden which contributes to the character of the protected structure, subdivision of the garden, particularly by permanent subdividers, may be inappropriate. 13.5.4 Proposals are often made which combine works to a protected structure, often to allow a new use be made of it, with new development within its curtilage or attendant grounds. Proposals for the existing structure should normally be made and considered together with those for any new development. The new development can be phased in such a way to ensure that conservation works to the protected structure are satisfactorily carried out. In particular, where conservation works to the structure will be costly, a reasonable and considered approach should be taken to the phasing of the development which ensures both that the protected structure is successfully conserved and the works satisfactorily completed. Floodlighting of Buildings 13.5.5 Proposals to floodlight a protected structure or a structure within an ACA will require careful consideration. 13.5.6 Issues to be considered which may affect the character of a protected structure or of an ACA will include the type and location of light fittings and any associated cabling or posts. The pattern, colouring and intensity of any proposed floodlighting scheme should be given consideration. An uncoordinated patchwork of different New development in the grounds of this important Gothic revival former convent is under construction between the structure and the nuns’ graveyard and has altered their historical relationship

2. Page 202

   Cite this pagePDF p. 202 (opens the publisher’s copy in a new tab)
   CHAPTER 13 CURTILAGE AND ATTENDANT GROUNDS Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities 200 floodlighting schemes within a terrace or square may diminish the architectural coherence of the group of buildings. 13.5.7 In addition, consideration should be given to whether increased light and heat levels generated by the floodlighting would encourage organic growth on the surfaces of the structure. 13.6 Features within the Attendant Grounds of a Protected Structure 13.6.1 Designed landscapes which form the attendant grounds of a protected structure may form part of a unified design concept. The landscape and the structures can be complementary and interdependent. For example, a mill building was entirely dependent on the designed landscape surrounding it and could not have functioned without its mill-pond, mill-races and bridges. These features of the designed landscape are essential to the understanding of the building and vice versa. 13.6.2 The designed landscape associated with the protected structure can include other buildings or structures associated with the functioning of the main building such as stables, icehouses, dovecotes, walled gardens, greenhouses, gate-lodges or bridges. There may also be apparently natural man-made features within a designed landscape such as lakes, canals, mounds, woodland or parkland. 13.6.3 In order to identify special features of the designed landscape associated with a protected structure, it will be necessary to carry out a historical assessment of the site. Some of the most important features may not be obvious at the outset without adequate survey and research using old maps, drawings, aerial photographs (both old and new), documents and other historical material. When assessing a designed landscape it is important to identify the historical layers of intervention that may exist and to respect the integrity of the site. Landscapes were often continually adapted and altered in response to changing fashions or uses. As with buildings, it is important to recognise and respect the contribution of different periods of alteration. 13.6.4 Important or intact features should be identified and located where they survive. These may not always be readily visible. For example, early gardens or other features may have been simply grassed over and survive below the surface. These could easily be lost through uninformed alterations. The floodlight here is positioned at a re-entrant angle, a sheltered location vulnerable to damp. Any increased levels of organic growth arising from the extra heat and light from floodlight fixtures should be monitored and if necessary the light fitting moved to a suitable distance from the historic fabric The existence of structures and features within attendant grounds which have fallen down, been overgrown or dismantled may not always be obvious, as with this small Gothic Revival well; but many were marked on early editions of Ordnance Survey maps which should help to locate and identify any surviving remains Designed landscapes include industrial landscapes as well as pleasure grounds and can include a complex of inter-related structures and features integral to the industrial process. In some cases the identification of the features of an industrial landscape may require specialist advice The attendant grounds of a protected structure can include structures designed and arranged solely for the purposes of pleasure; they are eye-catchers which adorn their setting and often contain rooms, as does this rustic arch, which allow for romantic contemplation of the artfully-arranged scenery. Follies are important elements of a designed landscape that should not be overlooked when identifying the features of the attendant grounds. The setting of follies and the views to and from them may be essential components of their special interest

3. Page 203

   Cite this pagePDF p. 203 (opens the publisher’s copy in a new tab)
   Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities 201 CHAPTER 13 CURTILAGE AND ATTENDANT GROUNDS 13.7 Development within the Attendant Grounds 13.7.1 It is essential to understand the character of a site before development proposals can be considered. Where attendant grounds of particular significance are proposed for development, a conservation plan could be prepared in advance of any planning application which would identify the significance of the site and locate areas within the designed landscape, if any, which could accept change and development and those areas which could not without damaging the architectural heritage of the place. 13.7.2 When dealing with applications for works within the attendant grounds of a protected structure, a visit to the site should be considered an essential part of the assessment. The planning authority should consider: a) Would the development affect the character of the protected structure? b) Would the proposed works affect the relationship of the protected structure to its surroundings and attendant grounds? c) Would the protected structure remain the focus of its setting? For example, a new building erected between a structure and a feature within the attendant grounds will alter the character of both; d) Do the proposed works require an alteration of the profile of the landscape, for example, the creation of a golf course? How would this affect the character of the protected structure and its attendant grounds? e) Do the proposals respect important woodland and parkland? Do they conserve significant built features and landscape features? f ) Are there important views of or from the structure that could be damaged by the proposed development? Would important vistas be obstructed by new development? g) Would distant views of important architectural or natural landmarks be blocked or changed? Would a significant skyline be altered? h) Even where the proposed development is at a distance from the protected structure, could it still have an impact? This could include tall or bulky buildings interrupting views of or from the protected structure and other features of the designed landscape; i) Where the new works would not be directly visible from the protected structure, would they be visible from the approaches to the structure or from other important sites or features within the attendant grounds? If so, would this be acceptable? j) What effect would the scale, height, massing, alignment or materials of a proposed construction have on the protected structure and its attendant grounds? Development within historic woodlands 13.7.3 Development proposals should have regard to the planted features of designed landscapes and efforts should be made to reinforce or to re-establish important structural planting such as avenues or clumps of trees, plantations, woodlands, hedging or shelter belts. 13.7.4 Proposals which attempt to ‘conceal’ housing or other developments within existing woodlands should be carefully scrutinised. Woodlands were an important feature of historic designed landscapes and were used as a design element to sculpt and enclose landscapes and vistas. They may contain paths, rides and drives. In addition to their aesthetic functions, woodlands played an important role in preserving game and wildlife. Many woodlands which are elements of a designed landscape may have been formed from older woodlands. The construction of new development within excisting woodlands can damage their character and integrity and have an adverse impact on the character of a wider designed landscape and the setting of protected structures. Commercial Planting 13.7.5 Commercial planting and other agricultural uses can damage the character of the attendant grounds of a protected structure. In addition, they may conceal features of a designed landscape such as Developments proposed for demesnes should respect the established planting pattern where this is part of the designed landscape. Consideration should be given at an early stage in the design process to the conservation of important woodlands, individual trees, shelter belts and copses both during development and afterwards.

4. Page 204

   Cite this pagePDF p. 204 (opens the publisher’s copy in a new tab)
   CHAPTER 13 CURTILAGE AND ATTENDANT GROUNDS Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities 202 earthworks, decorative tree-clumps and other plantations. Carefully designed vistas and unfolding views may be compromised. Paths, rides and drives through deciduous woodland may be lost. Golf courses 13.7.6 Proposals to redevelop the attendant grounds of a protected structure for use as a golf course should be treated with caution where this would adversely impact on the character of the structure. In some instances such proposals may require fundamental alterations to the ground profile. It may also bring about a requirement for the construction of clubhouses and ancillary buildings which may damage the character of the designed landscape and the setting of protected structures. Car Parking 13.7.7 The loss of garden may seriously affect the setting and character of a protected structure or of an ACA. Careful consideration should be given to the location of the car park to avoid damage to the character of the structure or its attendant grounds. The demolition of garden walls and the combining of two or more areas of garden to provide car parking within an urban area should generally be avoided. 13.7.8 Where it is necessary to provide car parking, efforts should be made to minimise its impact by careful design and use of materials. The associated alteration of boundary features should not be permitted unless the changes are considered not to be damaging to the character of a protected structure or of an ACA and would not result in inappropriate cumulative changes. 13.8 Other Development Affecting the Setting of a Protected Structure or an Architectural Conservation Area 13.8.1 When dealing with applications for works outside the curtilage and attendant grounds of a protected structure or outside an ACA which have the potential to impact upon their character, similar consideration should be given as for proposed development within the attendant grounds. A visit to the site should be considered an essential part of the assessment. 13.8.2 New development both adjacent to, and at a distance from, a protected structure can affect its character and special interest and impact on it in a variety of ways. The proposed development may directly abut the protected structure, as with buildings in a terrace. Alternatively, it may take the form of a new structure within the attendant grounds of the protected structure. A new development could also have an impact even when it is detached from the protected structure and outside the curtilage and attendant grounds but is visible in an important view of or from the protected structure. 13.8.3 The extent of the potential impact of proposals will depend on the location of the new works, the character and quality of the protected structure, its designed landscape and its setting, and the character and quality of the ACA. Large buildings, sometimes at a considerable distance, can alter views to or from the protected structure or ACA and thus affect their character. Proposals should not have an adverse effect on the special interest of the protected structure or the character of an ACA. The proposed construction of a golf course within a historic demesne requires careful scrutiny and consideration of all potential impacts. Alterations of the ground profile may be required, bunkers and greens can have a large visual impact on the character of the designed landscape and there may be a requirement for the construction of roadways, a clubhouse and other ancillary buildings within the demesne The alteration of boundary walls and railings to facilitate offstreet car-parking may sometimes seem minor; however the cumulative effect of a number of such incremental changes can have a disproportionately negative effect on the character of a group of protected structures and on the character of an ACA

5. Page 205

   Cite this pagePDF p. 205 (opens the publisher’s copy in a new tab)
   Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities 203 CHAPTER 13 CURTILAGE AND ATTENDANT GROUNDS 13.9 Moving Protected Structures 13.9.1 There is a close relationship between a protected structure and its location which may have been established at the time of construction or which has grown up and adapted as the life of the building progressed. Moving a historic building separates it irrevocably from its setting. Dismantling a structure, no matter how carefully executed and well meaning, can result in damage to the fabric. 13.9.2 Proposals to move a protected structure, or features within the curtilage or attendant grounds of a protected structure, should only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. The planning authority should be satisfied that every alternative has been properly explored and that relocation is essential to safeguard the structure. A protected structure may be more vulnerable to adverse impacts from new developments which, although located beyond the curtilage and attendant grounds, may nonetheless affect their character and setting. Important views to and from a protected structure and between it, and visible manmade landmarks such as spires or obelisks and sometimes natural landmarks such as mountains and lakes, should all be taken into account

6. Page 206

   Cite this pagePDF p. 206 (opens the publisher’s copy in a new tab)
   Non-habitable Protected Structures CHAPTER 14

7. Page 207

   Cite this pagePDF p. 207 (opens the publisher’s copy in a new tab)
   Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities 205 CHAPTER 14 NON-HABITABLE PROTECTED STRUCTURES Non-habitable protected structures may pose different conservation problems to other structures because of the nature of their construction or use. Some frequently encountered types are dealt with in this section. Where proposed works under consideration concern the repair of structures, the appropriate methods are described elsewhere in these guidance notes. 14.1 Ruinous Buildings 14.1.1 There are many ruinous structures throughout the country including a variety of building types such as castles, houses, churches and cottages. Proposals concerning works to such structures are likely to fall into one of three types: a) proposals to demolish the structure; b) proposals to consolidate the ruin, or c) proposals to restore the ruin and bring it back into use. 14.1.2 In the case of ruins which are recorded monuments in addition to being protected structures, it should be noted that there are separate additional procedures under the National Monuments Acts for notification to the statutory authority to be followed. Demolition 14.1.3 There is a presumption in favour of the preservation of all protected structures and demolition may only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. Some structures may have been added to the Record of Protected Structures as ruins; other protected structures may, through major accident, have become ruinous. 14.1.4 A proposal to demolish a ruin, where the demolition would adversely affect the character of an adjacent protected structure or of an ACA should be carefully considered. For example, a ruin may be part of a streetscape or may be a folly building, or ‘eye- Many structures make impressive ruins. In some cases restoration may be the preferred option where the ruin’s character can be retained. Other ruinous structures may be more appropriate for consolidation as ruins where restoration would require loss of historic fabric and largely conjectural reconstruction. Care should be taken when considering the most appropriate approach concerning ruins which stand as landmarks of the past – religious, industrial, social or political icons

8. Page 208

   Cite this pagePDF p. 208 (opens the publisher’s copy in a new tab)
   CHAPTER 14 NON-HABITABLE PROTECTED STRUCTURES Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities 206 catcher’, designed to be viewed from a distance as part of a designed landscape or it may be a local landmark. 14.1.5 An applicant may be able to produce a convincing case for demolition following major accidental damage to the ruin, perhaps through storm or fire damage, which has destroyed its character and causes it to pose a danger to the public. But any such proposals should be carefully scrutinised by the planning authority and expert advice may be required with regard to structural stability. Where an application is made to demolish or dismantle (whether in whole or in part) a protected structure that is a ruin, based on reasons of structural instability, the onus should be on the applicant to prove that the proposals are valid and all relevant matters have been properly addressed. A record should also be kept of that structure if permission is granted for demolition or dismantlement. Consolidation of ruinous buildings 14.1.6 There are cases where a structure of definite architectural, artistic or historical interest, such as a ruinous towerhouse, country mansion or church, cannot be restored and brought back into use without compromising its special interest or character. This will often be the case with structures which have stood for a considerable time as ruins. In order to prevent further deterioration of the protected structure, it may be proposed to consolidate the fabric as it stands and to preserve the structure as a ruin. 14.1.7 It should be a condition of permission for works to consolidate a ruinous structure that the methods used would not cause unacceptable damage to the character of the protected structure or an undue loss of historic fabric. The methods and detailed specification should be approved by the planning authority before any works commence. In some cases, even the removal of ivy or other vegetation from a ruinous building may have consequences for its structural stability and proposed methods of work should be carefully scrutinised. 14.1.8 Where a masonry wall has lost its facing or the core of a wall needs to be consolidated, proposals may be made to grout the rubble-core filling. The use of inappropriate materials such as strong cementbased grouts or poor work methods will damage the protected structure, often irreparably and, in extreme cases, may lead to the collapse of the structure. The applicant should be able to show that the proposed method of grouting will not endanger the structural stability of the wall. In this instance, a ruined markethouse marks the centre of a planned village. Despite its ruined state it forms a local landmark which, if lost, would remove the focus of the historic townscape Ivy has been removed from this mediaeval mural tower after an detailed record was made of the fabric to ensure that potential loss or damage to the stonework could accurately be remedied, reusing the historic fabric without resort to conjecture Care should be taken to match repairs to the existing in terms of materials and workmanship. This mediaeval doorway was rebuilt using an inappropriate cement mortar. The stones above the point of the arch have been set in a random pattern and finished with wide joints quite unlike the surrounding stonework

9. Page 209

   Cite this pagePDF p. 209 (opens the publisher’s copy in a new tab)
   Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities 207 CHAPTER 14 NON-HABITABLE PROTECTED STRUCTURES 14.1.9 Proposals may be made to take down and re-erect all or part of the walls of a ruinous structure where the walls are failing. Such proposals should generally only be permitted where it can be shown that the structure is in danger of collapse and no other option is available. It should be a condition of permission that the structure be fully recorded before dismantling is allowed to commence and be rebuilt using a maximum amount of the original material. In cases where there is good quality masonry, the stones should be individually numbered before being carefully dismantled to be re-erected in the same location. 14.1.10 In the consolidation of ruinous structures, attention needs to be paid to wall tops and openings as these areas are most vulnerable to water penetration and frost attack. However, works should not damage the fabric and appearance of the protected structure. The use of hard cement-based mortars may trap water against the surface of the wall or within the core of the wall and so promote decay. Where it is proposed to provide added protection to exposed parts of the ruin in the form of copings, flashings or mortar, these should not damage the fabric or appearance of the structure. Similar consideration should be given to proposed flashings which turn down over mouldings, cornices or the like and may unacceptably distort the proportions of the moulded work. Restoration of ruins 14.1.11 Works involved in rebuilding or restoring a ruin have the potential to alter materially the character of a structure but are always preferable to demolition. Each case will have to be judged on its merits. It will rarely be possible to bring a building that has stood for a long time as a ruin back into use without the replacement of certain amounts of the original fabric. Proposals to restore a ruinous structure should not involve an unacceptable amount of alteration or loss of important historic fabric. 14.1.12 Where permission is granted, it should include conditions to repair and retain as much of the historic fabric as possible. The methods of rebuilding, and the materials used should not cause damage to surviving earlier work that contributes to the character of the protected structure. The applicant should be required to use expert advice in identifying original or early fabric. There may be traces of paint, plaster or render coatings to internal or external walls, which should be recorded and/or preserved. Exposed wall heads are generally the most vulnerable parts of a ruined structure. The method proposed to cap exposed wall heads should not result in water being trapped inside the core of the wall and should be visually acceptable. In some cases, the ruinous structure may need to be monitored over a period of time before a decision can be made as to what work might be appropriate Some ruins may require careful dismantling and re-erection of parts of walls that have become unstable. In this case, apart from the repair work required to the gable (containing pigeon nesting boxes), it is intended to re-roof the building. Where it is appropriate to re-roof a ruinous structure, the aim should be to retain the maximum amount of original fabric

10. Page 210

    Cite this pagePDF p. 210 (opens the publisher’s copy in a new tab)
    CHAPTER 14 NON-HABITABLE PROTECTED STRUCTURES Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines for Planning Authorities 208 14.1.13 The location of new floors and partitions, even where no remnants of the original remain, should not conflict with existing openings or other original fabric. Where ruinous buildings are to be restored or reconstructed, proper survey records and drawings should be included as part of the planning application, distinguishing existing fabric from proposed new work, to enable the planning authority to assess the potential impact of the interventions. In each case the planning authority will have to assess the appropriateness of the approach, be it in contrasting (modern) or replicating (historical) style. A decision will be needed as to whether or not such interventions ought to be physically distinguished from the old work or recorded by documentation. Modern materials, such as steel structural elements, may be used where they are not visually disturbing, would not damage the historic fabric, nor adversely affect the character and special interest of the protected structure. 14.1.14 Restoration may require alterations in order to allow the building to function properly. Such proposals may include the application of external render on stone-walled structures such as towerhouses. Where such proposals are made, the onus should be on the applicant to prove the appropriateness of the proposals. For example, there may be evidence that the building was originally rendered or, even where such evidence has not been found, it may be shown that the application of an appropriate external render is necessary adequately to weatherproof the building. 14.2 Bridges IDENTIFICATION OF FEATURES FOR PROTECTION 14.2.1 There is a rich heritage of bridges throughout the country that requires careful consideration when any repair or alteration work is proposed. With the closure of some railway lines, many associated bridges and viaducts became redundant but nonetheless stand as important landmarks throughout the countryside and are of importance to the country’s civil engineering heritage. On the other hand, proposals to upgrade other railway lines and roads may bring about proposals for changes to historic bridges. 14.2.2 Bridges which are protected structures may include road, rail and canal bridges, aqueducts, viaducts and footbridges. They may incorporate features of special interest including abutments, parapets, cut-waters, refuges, balustrades, string courses, railings, lamp standards, plaques and paving. Where such features exist they should be identified and conserved. 14.2.3 Many early bridges are constructed of stone, either rubble stonework, ashlar or a combination of both. Iron and early steel bridges are less common and are usually associated with railway construction. Often a combination of iron and stone was used in the building of a bridge or viaduct. Early concrete bridges are relatively rare and should be carefully conserved. Timber bridges are also rare though timber components may be incorporated (in features such as handrails) in bridges built primarily of other materials. CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSALS REGARDING BRIDGES 14.2.4 Proposals to reinforce, widen or infill sections of a bridge which is a protected structure, resulting in the concealment of any part of it, should be treated with caution. Where reinforcement is proven to be unavoidable, efforts should be made to ensure that the least possible structural and visual damage is caused to the bridge. Bridges are primarily functional structures, however many of them are also aesthetically pleasing. On a finely detailed masonry-arched bridge, features of special interest may include abutments, parapets, cut-waters, string courses and paving Ireland has a strong civil engineering heritage of railway bridges constructed of masonry, metal or a combination of both. Iron and steel bridges often contain decoratively finished elements, makers’ stamps and other features that add to their special interest. Many masonry bridges incorporate datestones sometimes including details of their designers

Source Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht: Architectural Heritage Protection: Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2011) · Licence the publisher's termsText read from the publisher’s PDF; tables, maps and drawings do not survive as text, and page numbers are the PDF’s (its first page is 1). Check the original before relying on a passage.