The board of the National Gallery is to meet shortly to review its plans for a £12.5 million extension in Clare Street, Dublin, following yesterday's surprise decision by An Bord Pleanala to refuse planning permission for the project.
The board's ruling, which was made on conservation grounds, was described by the director of the gallery, Mr Raymond Keaveney, as a huge disappointment which represented a severe setback after many years of planning.
"A team of dedicated people has worked tirelessly over the past 10 years to fulfil our commitments to this great historic and unique collection, and to the Irish people, who are the ultimate beneficiaries of our endeavours", he said in a brief statement.
However, An Bord Pleanala's decision has been welcomed by those who objected to the scheme, such as An Taisce and the Irish Georgian Society, primarily because it involved the demolition of a mid-18th-century building, No 5 South Leinster Street.
Ms Mary Bryan, architectural officer of the Irish Georgian Society, said they were "obviously pleased" by the decision because, from the very outset, they had objected to aspects of the development, including the demolition of the former Davis King building.
The IGS, along with An Taisce and the Heritage Council, also objected to a 100-foot tower at the rear of the site, because of the impact it would have on the surrounding area, as well as to the insertion of a major modern building so close to Merrion Square.
Ms Bryan described An Bord Pleanala's decision, which declared that No 5 South Leinster Street was a building worthy of preservation, as "very heartening from the viewpoint of conservation bodies", although this did not necessarily mean that it would be saved.
"What the IGS would like to see is legislation to protect such buildings. We also want the National Gallery to rethink its plans to retain No 5", she said. "It was always our basic premise that the original error was to postulate a cleared site for architectural competition."
Mr Uinseann Mac Eoin, the veteran conservationist, who was the main appellant against the scheme, could not be contacted last night. At the public inquiry last autumn he denounced the National Gallery for putting forward such an "insensitive" proposal.
Mr Peter Pearson, a member of the Heritage Council, congratulated An Bord Pleanala on its decision. He suggested that the board's refusal reflected a "new awareness of the importance of protecting what's left in the city, even buildings which are not specifically listed for preservation".
National Gallery must go back to the drawing board: page 5
