Planning board inspector had backed gallery plan

An Bord Pleanala's surprise decision to reject the National Gallery's controversial plan to build a major extension in Clare Street, Dublin, was made in the face of a strong recommendation from one of its senior planning inspectors that permission should be granted.

Mr Padraig Thornton, who presided at the oral hearing of the appeal last autumn, said in his 97page report to the board that the £12.5 million project was "of significant importance for the city and country as a whole", and that the modern design proposed was "appropriate and desirable".

On the crucial issue of the fate of No 5 South Leinster Street, the mid-18th century building on the site, with its Regency ballroom to the rear, he concluded that these structures were not of sufficient merit to justify "compromising" the design of the extension by insisting on their preservation.

However, Mr Thornton recommended that conditions be attached to any planning permission, requiring the National Gallery to salvage some of the features of the interior of the building and its architects to submit more detailed drawings of their scheme for approval by Dublin Corporation.

He said the proposed extension to the gallery would be in line with the corporation's strategy to reinforce the core of Dublin as the commercial, cultural and social centre of the metropolitan area.

Mr Thornton also considered that the "high standard of design" of the new building would "make a positive contribution to the streetscape and to the architecture of the city in general", and that it would not be "injurious" to the visual amenity of the area.

Ten days after he submitted his report, An Bord Pleanala stunned all of the parties involved by refusing permission on straightforward conservation grounds. The board felt that No. 5 South Leinster Street was "worthy of preservation", even though it had not been so listed.

Consequently, the National Gallery will have little option but to ask its architects to go back to the drawing board and produce a revised scheme which retains this building and its ballroom.

In line with practice, An Bord Pleanala has offered no further explanation for its decision. However, the view being taken in planning circles is that it was seeking to underline its independence by not automatically approving this major public project.