This article is from page 74 of the 2008-02-12 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 74 JPG
CONTENTIOUS plans by a Galway- based company to construct a four- storey apartment block overlooking the 13th century Franciscan abbey in Ennis have been turned down.
An Bord Pleanala has upheld an Ennis Town Council decision that the development would detract from the special character and setting of the monument due to its scale, height and proximity to the abbey.
Four years ago, in the face of local opposition, Dwellblin Construction Ltd secured planning permission for 46 residential units on the site.
Last year the company lodged plans to construct the four storey apart-
ment block in the open space of the original development, adding 13 two bedroom apartments and one three bedroom townhouse.
Clare GAA County Board emerged as the most outspoken opponent against the scheme, despite not op- posing two previous planning appli- cations adjacent to the Abbey site.
In its appeal to An Bord Pleanala, Dwellblin argued that the height of the new block was consistent with the height of permitted development else- where on the appeal site and would not result in the material alteration or demolition of structures forming part of the Abbey monument. The devel- opers also claimed that the proposal would not have adverse implications
for the archaeological heritage.
The appeals board inspector rec- ommended that planning permission be refused and the board subsequent- ly ruled that the development would seriously detract from Ennis Friary. The board found that the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
The board also refused planning permission having regard to the site configuration, its generally narrow width and location adjoining a pro- tected structure. It stated that the proposal would represent an over development by reasons of exces- sive density, poor aspect and limited functionality of public open space
and shortfall in car parking.
The board order read: “The pro- posed development would, therefore, provide a poor standard of amenity to future residents, seriously injure the amenities of property in the vi- cinity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable develop- ment of the area.”
The board also ruled that, having regard to the scale of the proposed development and the consequent de- mand for car parking provision, that the proposed development would give rise to on-street parking and tend to create serious traffic conges- tion which would endanger public safety by reason of obstruction of road users.