This article is from page 17 of the 2007-07-24 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 17 JPG
AN BORD Pleanala has over-ruled the recommendation of its own in- spector to grant planning permission for contentious plans for a housing development in Ballyvaughan.
Earlier this year, Clare County Council granted planning permis- sion to Thomas P Considine for 21 homes in the face of opposition from local residents.
However, the residents appealed the decision to An Bord Pleanala. They stated that the proposed houses are suburban in massing, design and density and are therefore inappro-
priate for the location proposed and damaging to visual amenity.
The residents also stated that the pro- posed development by reason of the number of residential units proposed, would prejudice the orderly develop- ment of the settlement as envisaged in the development plan and also argued that the pattern of development is in- consistent with the historic pattern of development of the area.
The residents also argued that the development would overlook certain neighbouring residential properties and that the site is prone to flooding.
In the recommendation by its in- spector, Keith Sargent, he recom-
mended refusal after ruling that the proposed dwellings would have an unacceptable visual impact on the scenic amenities of this visually sen- sitive area, and would set an inappro- priate precedent for the construction of similar dwellings on other unde- veloped lands in Ballyvaughan.
He stated, “The proposed develop- ment would, therefore, be contrary to proper planning and sustainable de- velopment of the area.”
The inspector also ruled that, con- sidering the existing deficiency in the Ballyvaughan sewerage system and the uncertainty regarding the timing of future improvements to the system,
development of the kind proposed on the land would be premature.
Mr Sergeant ruled that access to the development is proposed via a cul-de-sac road serving an existing residential estate and involving con- struction of a road on existing public Open space serving the said existing residential estate. He said, “The pro- posed development would therefore seriously injure the amenities and depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”
However, in its ruling, the council stated that the development would
not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity, would be acceptable in terms of traf- fic safety and convenience and would not be prejudicial to public health. The board explained not accept- ing the inspector’s recommendation by stating that the proposed devel- opment as designed represented an acceptable standard appropriate to its context, the issue of foul sewage could be addressed by condition, and the access proposed was appropriate in the context of the planned expan- sion of residential development in the area and would not unduly injure the amenities of adjoining property.