55 homes in Cork refused planning permission

55 homes in Cork refused planning permission
Glounthaune village Picture: Richard Mills.

FIFTY-FIVE houses that had been given the green light for Glounthaune by Cork County Council have been refused permission by An Bord Pleanála following a number of appeals against the development.

The proposed development by Bluescape Limited was appealed by three third parties to An Bord Pleanála, while Cork County Council had previously 14 third party submissions.

The appellants claimed that the development in question was not in accordance with local planning policy, and say that it would be more suited to a larger settlement and not a village. They said that the development was in contradiction of the Local Area Plan (LAP) as there were more than the permitted number of homes proposed, while they say that the LAP also sets a maximum limit of 400 new units over the lifetime of the plan, which represents a 79% increase in population.

“It should be noted that no new services or facilities have been provided within the village to accommodate the population increase,” An Bord Pleanala’s summation of the appeals reads.

Meanwhile, residents were concerned about the impact of the development on existing amenities, and raised concerns surrounding overshadowing and overlooking, and said properties in the area would be devalued.

They also raised queries about a separate Strategic Housing Development from the same company on adjoining lands. “All the lands should be included in one application and should not be split,” it read.

There was also a pedestrian route planned through a narrow portion of the site, which objectors said would result in anti-social behaviour, light pollution, and would have a negative impact on privacy and the security of existing dwellings.

An Bord Pleanala’s inspector recommended that planning should be granted for the development, however, the Board chose to refuse it.

The Board said that they took into account a number of issues when making their decision.

“The additional traffic associated with the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and would lead to conflict between road users, that is, vehicular traffic, pedestrians and cyclists,” their report stated.

“Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the national planning policy which aims to achieve compact growth through effective density and consolidation rather than more sprawl of urban development.”

More in this section

Sponsored Content