This article is from page 21 of the 2005-10-18 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 21 JPG
PLANS for a commercial development that 1s expected to further rejuvenate the Drumbiggle area of Ennis have been thrown into doubt.
This follows residents from the Buttermarket area of Ennis appealing to An Bord Pleanala.
The group are contesting a decision by En- nis Town Council to grant planning permission to Pat Hansbury, Alan Collins and Donie and John Dillane for a four storey building.
The planned building will 18 apartments and four retail units, along with an underground car- park to accommodate 46 car-parking spaces.
Currently, the site 1s wasteland opposite En- nis town Council’s Drumbiggle headquarters.
The site was the former site of the rundown Drumbiggle flats before they were demolished by the Council. The Council subsequently sold the property and plans were lodged for the de- velopment earlier this year. The Council ruled that the development would not seriously injure the amenities of adjacent dwellings, that it is acceptable in terms of traffic safety and in the interests of proper planning and development.
The Council granted planning permission in spite of opposition from the Buttermarket resi- dents. The development has now been put on hold with the appeal lodged.
The residents state that “the development is excessive in scale and density for the site and cannot be contained adequately within its own boundaries in an acceptable manner without undue negative impact on the amenity and val- ue of surrounding properties.”
The group also contends that “the visual de- sign, massing and scale of the development is totally inappropriate to the area.
“If granted it will represent a missed opportu- nity to provide a building, or real architectural merit in this Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) near to a protected structure.
“The effective covering of almost all of the site has resulted in a development that adversely impacts on adjacent development.
“It sets a poor precedent for further develop- ment in the area. It has a visual and structural presence well in excess of what is appropriate to the area. And it would be more suitable to city centre high density forms of development than the centre of a medium order traditional atte as wrsem Key, ‘s0 ee
The residents state that they “are very con- cerned about the likely impact of the develop- ment on their properties.
“Some of the residents live in the small sin- gle-storey houses immediately to the north of the development site. Our clients have been sur- prised by the way their legitimate concerns for privacy and amenity in these rear garden areas have been dismissed by the Council in its as- sessment of this issue
“It is not acceptable that for reasons for prop- er planning and sustainable development that the amenity and privacy of houses in the vicin- ity should be compromised in this way by pro- viding a ‘wall of development 6.8 metres high along the rear of their garden areas.
“The board should note that this street is used extensively by school children walking to the nearby national school. Traffic generated by the development in these circumstances would be a serious traffic hazard.
A decision is due on the appeal in January of next year.