Council gives go-ahead for revamp of Auburn House building on Athlone's Connaught Street

A controversial plan to redevelop a long-derelict protected building on Connaught Street in Athlone has been approved, despite calls from some councillors to defer the decision amid concerns over heritage impacts.

Westmeath County Council members considered the Part 8 proposal for Auburn House, a three-storey over basement structure dating from around 1810, at 36 Connaught Street, during their latest meeting.

The plan provides for the demolition of a later rear extension and the construction of a new four-storey extension to accommodate three residential units.

The project, which involves the creation of one two-bedroom duplex and two one-bedroom apartments, also includes repair works to the existing protected structure and the removal of derelict outbuildings to the rear.

The proposal has attracted local attention in recent weeks, with community representatives raising concerns about aspects of the design and the potential loss of historic features, echoing wider calls for changes to regeneration plans in the area.

Council chief executive Barry Kehoe told members the scheme followed a detailed conservation impact assessment and an extensive public consultation process, during which two submissions were received, including one from the Connaught Street Community Group.

While the group broadly welcomed efforts to bring the building back into use, it raised concerns about elements of the proposal.

Mr Kehoe said a number of conditions had emerged from the assessment process, including the requirement for archaeological monitoring during works and the retention, where possible, of key historic features such as the main staircase, window openings, shutters and other joinery.

Recommending the project proceed, Mr Kehoe said it struck a balance between conservation and the need to deliver housing.

He added that the council had engaged conservation specialists and that the scheme would preserve the essential character of the building while bringing it back into productive use.

Local councillors broadly supported the principle of regenerating the long-vacant property, though several expressed reservations about aspects of the design.

Cllr Aengus O’Rourke said the building had come into council ownership around seven years ago and had remained an “eyesore” on the street for years. “While it’s only three units, it’s an important contribution,” he said.

Cllr Frankie Keena also welcomed the proposal, highlighting the historic character of Connaught Street and the importance of preserving its architectural heritage.

“A lot of the buildings are really lovely to look at, and it’s important to conserve them and maintain them into the future,” he said.

Cllr John Dolan said the project needed to be viewed in a broader context than housing numbers alone. “In the real world, this proposal wouldn’t wash… but it’s the only way this building, in my view, is going to be preserved,” he said.

However, Cllr John Gibbons proposed that the decision be deferred for a month to allow for further examination of heritage concerns, suggesting a more detailed independent assessment of the building’s features. His proposal was supported by Cllr Denis Leonard.

Cllr Tom Farrell queried the implications of rejecting the proposal, asking: “If this is rejected, are we back to square one?”

In response, Mr Kehoe said the statutory process did not allow for a simple deferral, as the council was required to make a decision within six weeks of the chief executive’s report, setting a deadline of April 16.

He told members they could either amend or reject the proposal, but warned that introducing additional processes could jeopardise the project and its funding.

Architect Andrew Macken told the meeting the project had already undergone extensive review and engagement with planning and conservation officials, describing it as one of several social housing schemes planned for Connaught Street.

He said the approved budget for the development exceeds €900,000 and urged members not to delay progress further.

Ultimately, no formal proposal to reject the scheme was made, meaning the development was deemed approved under the Part 8 process.