This article is from page 5 of the 2008-01-29 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 5 JPG
AN Bord Pleanala has turned down a planned €24 million housing devel- opment for Ennis.
Last year, Clare County Council refused planning permission to one of the county’s best known builders, McCarthy Brothers, to construct 94 homes at Ballybeg on the southern environs of the town.
In the appeal, consultants for Mc- Carthy Bros pointed out that the land was zoned residential in the Ennis and Environs Development Plan. The consultants said that the devel- opment of the site responded to the availability of the land at present and while the surrounding lands were zoned residential, there was no guar- antee that the development of these lands would take place at any time in the near future.
The consultants stated that the open space provision met the requirements of the Clare County Development Plan with a total of 16.4 per cent of the site given over to open space. They said that the Ballybeg Road was adequate to cater for the level of traffic generated by the proposed development.
After assessing the application, the appeals board’s planning inspector concluded that the proposed develop- ment “would represent a haphazard and non-integrated piece meal devel-
opment”. The appeals board stated, “The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable develop- ment of the area.”
The appeals board also stated that “it 1s considered that the proposed layout of the development was sub- standard due to the general layout and disposition of public open space and the overall linear emphasis in terms of the layout of access roads and adjoining housing units”.
The board inspector found that the proposed development would seri- ously injure the residential amenity of future occupants of the estate and the proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable develop- ment of the area.
The inspector concluded that the proposal would seriously injure the amenities of the residents of an ex- isting cul-de-sac road, particularly having regard to the fact that a more suitable access which would serve the entire area of residentially zoned lands at this location was located approximately 120 metres further west.
As aresult, the board inspector con- cluded that the development “would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustain- able development of the area.”