A NUMBER of residents who had to evacuate their homes as a result of a fire that burned down Bredin’s hard- ware on Station Road in Ennis have failed in their bid to halt the redevel- opment of the site.
The well-known Ennis store burned down in November 2007 causing a number of houses to evacuated for a number of days and, in one instance, for a number of months.
Last year, Galileo Enterprises Ltd lodged plans to replace the structure and these were approved by Ennis Town Council. The directors of Gal- ileo Enterprises Ltd are local busi- nessmen, Noel Connellan and Dan Moran and its most recent returns show that it has accumulated profits OR OPA Pa ribelnleie
However, Maeve Hoey, Paul Bar- rett (on behalf of the Estate of the late Mrs M.R. Barrett) and Sile Gin- nane lodged an appeal against the council decision on the grounds of privacy and security of their houses . They maintained that the application was “thoroughly unclear and unsat- isfactorily”’.
They maintained that there should be an overall site masterplan which would set the design quality for the remainder of the brownfield site.
An earlier submission to the coun- cil from the residents stated that “the fire at Bredin’s premises put their homes at risk to fire, smoke and as-
bestos, resulting in evacuation for a number of days to several months for some residents and the clean-up which took many months to com- ey Kome
“This experience has undermined our confidence in the close proxim- ity of large retail and warehouse units and we are not distressed with the scale of what is indicated in the masterplan site of this application,” they claimed.
However, in his recommendation, the Bord Pleanala inspector stated that “the proposed development does not represent a significant departure from the current use of the surround-
ing area and would not require justi- fication by a masterplan”.
The inspector stated that “the type and scale of the proposed uses would be in keeping with those established on the site and the proposed building would be in keeping with the charac- ter of the area”.
“The development would not seri- ously injure the amenities of proper- ties in the vicinity of the site. it would not give rise to traffic hazard or con- gestion or place an undue demand on the water and sewerage services in the area
As a result, the Board ruled that “having regard to the established use
of the site and to its planning history, the grant of permission and to the pattern of development in the vicin- ity, the proposed development would not seriously injure the character of the area or the amenities of property in the vicinity, would not be prejudi- cial to public health and would be ac- ceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience’.