An Bord Pleanala reference: PL 20. 212967

INSPECTORS REPORT

Development: Construction of new two storey mixed use unit comprising of 6 no. two bedroom apartments at first floor level, three ground floor commercial units and one retail unit with three bay fuel pumping station, marked fuel pump area, station canopy, machine and manual car wash area, station signage; and 11 no. four bedroom detached houses, five no. four bedroom semi detached houses, 13 no. three bedroom semi detached houses, one no. four bedroom mid terrace house; two storey 26 bedrooms hotel with bar and restaurant, kitchen, service area, meeting and function rooms, ancillary rooms, enclosed service yard with plant room; on site parking areas, construction of new entrance from public road, partial reconstruction of existing roadside boundary wall, connection to existing services and associated site works at Demesne, Frenchpark, Co. .

Planning Application

Planning authority : Roscommon County Council

Planning authority Register Reference : 04/2094

Applicant : John Hanily

Type of application : Permission

Planning Authority decision : Grant subject to 35 no. conditions

Planning Appeal

Appellant(s) : John McCabe

Type of appeal : Third party

Observers : None

Date of site inspection : 27th September 2005

Inspector : Philip Green

Enclosures : Appendix 1 - annotated photographs Appendix 2 - extracts from the Development Plan

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 1 of 17 1.0 THE SITE

1.1 The appeal site has a stated area of 2.44 ha. and is located in Frenchpark, a village at the crossroads of the N5 (between Ballaghaderreen and ) and R361 ( to ) Roads. The site is located some 200 metres north east of this junction on the north western side of the R361. The R361 is served at this point by footpaths on both side of the road and street lighting. The central core of the village mainly comprises of two storey terraced properties of traditional character although on the outskirts of the village opposite the site on the eastern side of the road and to the north on the same side of the road are more recent one off housing and estate developments of single storey, dormer style and two storey construction. Immediately to the south is a dormer bungalow with windows in its gable facing towards the site.

1.2 The site consists of an undulating grassed field which drops down generally from south to north. An existing ditch and hedge crosses the land and the site extends beyond this in its north western section into a further field beyond. There are mature trees on the site particularly adjacent to the road frontage and further trees and vegetation in the wetter and low lying north eastern section of the site. There is an existing drain following the northern boundary between the site and the new housing under construction to the north. A traditional stone wall forms the site boundary with the road broken only by the existing agricultural access gate.

1.3 I attach as Appendix 1 to this report photographs of the appeal site and surroundings.

2.0 THE APPLICATION

2.1 See description of development. As applied for sought permission for permission for the following:

• Residential development of 30 no. two storey detached, semi detached and terraced three and four bedroom units ranging in floor area from approximately 125 sq.m. to 157 sq.m; • A two storey ‘mixed unit’ comprising petrol filling station including (160 sq.m.) plus forecourt with three bays and mechanical and manual car washes and flat roofed canopy, three commercial units on the ground floor (2 x 79 sq.m. and 1 x 160 sq.m.) and six no. two bed apartments (66 sq. m. floor area each) with independent external rear access at first floor level. Two vehicular ‘in/out’ access points to this building were proposed onto the public road serving a front parking area for 13 vehicles whilst a further rear access was proposed from the main estate road to further parking and delivery areas for the apartments and commercial units; • Two storey hotel of stated floor area of 2024 sq.m. including 26 no. bedrooms, function and meeting rooms, foyer, lounge, dining, kitchen, bar and ancillary areas.

2.2 A single main development access point is proposed to serve the hotel and residential development and the rear access to the ‘mixed unit’ in addition to

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 2 of 17 the two further vehicle access points directly onto the R361 referred to above serving the commercial uses of the ‘mixed unit’. The application indicates development to be served by public mains water supply and public mains sewer. Surface water proposals include for attenuation tanks with water draining into the drain immediately to the north of the site.

2.3 On the 15th February 2005, the Planning Authority sought Further Information. This included:

• Respond to Third Party concerns; • Deletion of curved sewers shown on drawings; • Detailed design of storm water attenuation including levels relative to stream, how preventing surcharges, flood levels; • Capacity of existing drainage network within and downstream of development; • Provision of wayleave for maintenance of drains with rear boundaries of private sites outside this area; • Set back of front boundary to create right turn filter; • Calculation of car parking provision to be clarified and omission of car parking on hotel roundabout; • Area for mixed use development too restricted to accommodate number and combination of uses with inadequate amenity space and poor parking and access arrangements. Scale of this aspect of development to be reduced; • Site to be serviced from single access road only with single shared access only onto . Adequate space to be provided for vehicle parking, manoeuvring, loading etc. • Details in regard to petrol filling station required including location of fuel storage tanks and details of canopy, signage, shopfront and forecourt; • House design to prevent overlooking from first floor windows in side elevations, provide a single storey house type in accordance with Housing Strategy, mix of apartments to be provided and Unit 23 to be omitted and resultant area used as open space; • Tree survey required; • Design residual water pressure at finished floor level to be indicated; • Provision for recycling and hard surfaced play areas for children required; • Landscaping details required; • Redesign of hotel entrance area.

2.4 A response to this was received on the 27th April 2005. This included:

• Responses to the submissions of objectors; • Revised surface water and foul sewer details and engineers submission; • Provision of right turn filter lane; • Car parking and open space calculations provided; • Revised layout to mixed use development area;

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 3 of 17 • Revision to apartment sizes and increased private open space to these units; • Omission of one of three entrances originally proposed and turning movements illustrated; • Details of fuel storage tanks and petrol filling station infrastructure illustrated. Request that canopy be granted as is with final details and signage and shopfronts to be agreed; • Further details of landscaping and tree survey provided; • Amendments to house design including first floor side window addressed and three no. single storey dwellings now proposed; • Revised entrance area detail provided.

2.5 On the 5th May 2005, the Planning Authority notified the Applicant that the Further Information lodged required a new public newspaper notice.

2.6 There is a copy of a “Final Planning report and Recommendation” dated 7th May 2005 on the Board’s file. This is signed although it appears to both recommend seeking clarification of the further information received and to grant permission.

2.7 On the 11th May 2005 the Planning Authority received a Hydrological Survey of the site and on the 16th may 2005 the Planning Authority received a letter indicating why it was not necessary to provide a 5m. wayleave within the application site (as already in place on other bank).

2.8 On the 12th May 2005 the Planning Authority received a copy of a new newspaper notice.

2.9 There is a copy of a “Final Planning Report and Recommendation” jointly dated 2nd May, 2nd and 7th June 2005 on the Board’s file. There is a recommendation from the Area Planner seeking clarification of the further information lodged in respect of five items. There is an (unsigned) copy of a letter dated 3rd June 2005 to the Applicant’s seeking such clarification. It is unclear whether this letter was forwarded to the Applicant as a Notification of Decision to Grant Permission was issued by the Council on the 7th June 2005.

3.0 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION

3.1 The Notification of Decision to Grant Permission was subject to 35 no. conditions. These included:

• Details of surface water and foul sewers, storm water attenuation tanks, pollution control measures and petrol interceptors to be agreed (Condition 2, 3 4 and 5); • Mature trees to be retained in accordance with tree survey and landscaping scheme to be agreed including hard surfaced play area (Conditions 6 and 7); • Construction waste and construction management plan and controls (Conditions 20, 21,22 and 23); • External material detailing (Conditions 26, 27 and 28);

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 4 of 17 • Signage detailing (Conditions 29 and 31); • Use of individual commercial units to be agreed prior to occupation (Condition 30); • Development Contribution of euro 270,200 (Condition 32); • Bond of Euro 300,000 towards satisfactory completion of development (Condition 33); • Amendments to scheme including omission of unit nos. 23-26 and replacement with two Type 6 units facing north, area of site no. 23 to be landscaped open space associated with hotel, omission of two no. retail units (2 and 3) and two no. 2 bedroom apartments and provision of private open space in lieu and omission of access for filling station from regional road (Condition 34); • Developer to give two weeks notice of intention to commence development (Condition 35).

4.0 PLANNING HISTORY

4.1 No relevant planning history relating to this site has been brought to my attention. The following planning history relates to the lands to the north of the site:

• PD/04/2005: Removal of house types and construction of 3 additional apartments in their place, change of house types to include revised apartment block and subsequent revisions to numbering of houses, revising the total number of residential units from 53no. to 56no. as granted under previous planning application reference no. PD/03/980. Application withdrawn following Planning Authority request for Further Information.

• PD/03/980: Permission granted by Roscommon County Council for 2 no. 4 bedroom bungalows, 10 no. 4 bedroom detached, 14 no. 3 bedroom semi detached, 7 no. 4 bedroom semi detached, 8 no. 4 bedroom townhouses, 12 no. 2 bedroom apartments, site boundary wall, entrance from public road, connection to public services and associated site works.

5.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICY

5.1 The site lies within the administrative area of Roscommon County Council wherein the provisions of the Roscommon County Development Plan 2002 apply. In 4.2 (Settlement Structure) of the Plan it is stated that the smaller towns and villages of the County, as well as the principal towns, have a critical role in building the economy of the County. It states that an important aim of the Plan is to continue to make the towns and villages more attractive places in which to establish additional employment and new households. The main areas of growth and development referred to in section 4.10 (Summary) are the four scheduled towns of Roscommon, Boyle, Castlerea and Ballaghaderreen as well as Monksland, , , and Elphin.

5.2 In Chapter 5 (Settlement Strategy) the primary aim of the Plan is set out in terms of consolidating the County and facilitating a high quality of life

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 5 of 17 through sustainable development of further economic and social activities. One of the mechanisms to achieve this is stated as promting economic and social development in the towns and villages where most new development will be channelled and where it can bring benefits both to the settlements and to their rural hinterlands. In support of the role of towns and villages the Plan indicates that the Council will seek to develop town and village plans for settlements in addition to the four scheduled towns , Athllone Environs, Creagh and Cortober. There would currently appear to be no village plan for Frenchpark.

5.3 In the Housing section of Chapter 5 it is stated that adequate lands for housing are zoned in the principal towns and the Environs, Creagh and Cortober. Outside of these principal urban centres housing development will be encouraged, where possible, into smaller towns and villages where support services and facilities are available.

5.4 I attach as Appendix 2 to this report extracts from the Development Plan. This includes sections on Housing, Transport, Water and Waste Management and Retailing and Environment Development Policy and sections on Development Control and Development Standards.

6.0 THE APPEAL

6.1 This is a Third Party appeal lodged against the Notification of Decision of the Roscommon County Council to grant permission. The matters raised in the grounds of appeal include:

• Second petrol filling station in village unviable; • Petrol station and its canopy and advertising would be blot on the landscape; • Scheme only results from abolition of tax incentive schemes, the associated deadlines and is premature. Number of welcome residential developments have already been built as a result of these schemes which have been built at a pace which serviced needs of locality. Abolition of tax benefits has led to surge in proposals of which current proposal is one without consideration of its impact on the area and consideration to its overall design; • Number of other housing developments in area have already been completed, are under construction and have permission; • The rushed nature of the proposals is apparent from the documents on the file. Evidence suggest this is a planning application cobbled together to beat tax deadlines; • There are already a large number of vacant properties in the area and construction on sites is proceeding slowly to allow demand to catch up. There is also a false market with a number of houses occupied by tradesmen building other houses; • Foul sewerage treatment plant is nearing capacity. It is an Objective of the Development Plan to provide an upgraded treatment plant by 2006;

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 6 of 17 • Design of hotel with its dominant roof and its massing an bulk is not in keeping with character of buildings in area or the other aspects of the proposed development; • Scheme seeks to squash as much mixed development as possible onto the site; • Poor interaction of elements within scheme and with its surroundings; • Local Authority made hasty suggestions to amend scheme which relies on details being agreed after permission granted. There is no house type 6 as referred to in one of the conditions. They have concentrated on proposed housing least affected by hotel. The scheme will still result in noise disturbance and overlooking to the nearest proposed houses; • Nearest houses too close to hotel which includes a function room. No consideration given to occupants of proposed housing; • Area between hotel and road is to be an expansive car park which will detract from amenities of area and entrance to village. Area should be replaced by landscaping; • Disabled car parking is remote from main entrance; • Car parking at a lower standard than required in Development Plan with extra 55 spaces required and will result in on street parking; • Site has poor drainage which is acknowledged in the Consultants report. Watercourse will not be able to accommodate run off in high water level winter conditions (see photographs); • There is an Objective of the Development Plan to create village plans for settlements during the life of the Plan. No such plan has been prepared for Frenchpark. Development premature in present form; • Area planner requested scaling down of proposals but this was not done and scheme was largely unchanged; • Final further information request was never sent and next thing on file is recommendation to grant. This is evidence of conflict of opinion in planning office. Further planning office then decided to change scheme although conditions do not reflect information on drawings as they create two stand alone buildings; • Approach taken is at variance with proposal submitted, represents a major alteration and without the public having an understanding of what is permitted;

7.0 RESPONSE OF THE APPLICANTS TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

7.1 The Applicant have responded as follows to the grounds of appeal:

• Appeal is vexatious and without foundation; • Appellant is owner of other filling station in village; • No-one else objected to development; • Development will create new activity and business; • Development lands have been in ownership of Applicant’s family since 1950’s; • Applicant from area and wishes to ensure development suitable for area and to offer something not presently in area;

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 7 of 17 • Development designed over a nine to twelve month period prior to its submission and was carefully considered and designed during that period; • Development is Phase 1 of a larger scheme with Phase 2 currently being prepared incorporating a nursing centre, retirement village and medical centre; • Frenchpark has been subject of a reasonable level of development and increase in residential units with no great change in level of commercial or other services; • There is no difficulty in making minor changes proposed by Planning Authority; • No further comments are made on technical matters raised as these are dealt with in application and further information submission; • Comments in regard to Planning Authority’s handling of application are insulting as it was given detailed consideration; • There is considerable demand for housing in area as evidenced by the amount of house sales (see attached letter from auctioneer); • These houses in close proximity to the town centre will be in high demand; • Appellant is operating part of business without planning permission; • Scheme is well balanced, well designed fits in with and is suitable for the village and will provide much needed services. The Planning Authority assessed the scheme and decided to grant permission.

7.2 Also attached to this response are part of the application and further information submissions, permission granted for the Appellants premises and photographs.

8.0 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY’S RESPONSE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL

8.1 The Planning Authority have not responded to the grounds of appeal.

9.0 ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION

9.1 In my opinion, the main issues to be considered in this appeal are:

• Nature of appeal; • Public Notices and Planning Authority’s processing of application; • Principle of the development; • Impact on character and appearance of area; • Layout and relationships of buildings within development and with surrounding property; • Access and car parking provisions; • Drainage provisions.

9.2 Nature of Appeal: The First Party has argued that the appeal is vexatious and without foundation. I do not accept this view. Although I consider that a number of the comments expressed in the Appellant’s submission are superfluous to consideration of matters relating to the proper planning and sustainable development of an area I consider that the broad thrust of the

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 8 of 17 majority of matters and concerns raised are relevant to the Board’s consideration of the planning merits of this case. I consider that the Appellant has raised a number of relevant planning issues that require assessment. I recommend that the Board should not dismiss this appeal under the provisions of S.138 of the Act on grounds of it being vexatious, frivolous or without substance or foundation.

9.3 Public Notices and Planning Authority’s processing of application: I draw the Board’s attention to the description of development contained on the public notices. I would accept the point raised by the Appellant that the original description inaccurately describe the proposed vehicular access provisions. The Board will note that a total of three vehicular entrances were proposed to serve the development (amended to two in the further information response). The description refers only to a “…. construction of new entrance from public road …”. The subsequent Notice advertising the further information response did not address the issue. I consider that should the Board be minded to grant permission with either the three or two vehicular access proposal that revised public notices would be required. Having regard to my conclusions on the merits of this case however the Board may not wish to pursue this course of action.

9.4 I draw the Board’s attention to what appears to be the final planners report with various dates on the Board’s file including 2nd May, 7th May, 2nd June and 7th June 2005. These appear to be suggesting seeking clarification of the Further Information response in respect of five items and there is an unsigned letter to this effect on the file. There is also however a note with a recommendation to grant from the Area Planner with a Schedule of Conditions. A Notification of Decision to grant issued from the Planning Authority on the 7th June 2005. There is therefore some lack of clarity in regard to the status of the letter recommending clarification of the Further Information and the associated justification why the matters referred to no longer required clarification. The absence of a response from the Planning Authority has not assisted in my being able to clarify the matter to the Board. The Board may wish to pursue this matter further prior to determining the appeal. I will however continue with my assessment of the application on its merits on the basis of the information now available to me.

9.5 Principle of the development: As pointed out by the Appellant there is reference in the Development Plan to the development of town and village plans in support of their role in promoting economic and social development. The village does not appear to be the subject of a LAP of other village plan and there are no references to the site being formally zoned under the provisions of the current Development Plan. The Board may therefore wish to consider whether the development is premature pending the provision of such a document. There may be some basis to this having regard to the current scale and character of the village, the further development referred to as having been constructed, under construction and permitted and the provisions for a further phase of development associated with this scheme. The Board will be aware that the absence of zoning provisions frees the Applicant from compliance with Part V requirements. This could be considered to be a further

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 9 of 17 justification for considering the development premature having regard to Government policy on such matters. This must however be balanced against the policies in the Development Plan seeking to promote development within established settlements. I consider that the site could reasonably be described as being located within (albeit on the edge) of the settlement of Frenchpark having regard to its proximity to existing and permitted development and linkages in terms of services and infrastructure with the settlement. I also consider that the general nature of uses proposed including the hotel and residential use (subject to the further comments below) would not be inappropriate to such a location and would be supportive of the intention of the Development Plan to promote the economic and social well being of established villages. I do not therefore recommend any objection to the principle of the development on grounds of absence of zoning provisions or on grounds of prematurity pending the adoption of a LAP or other Village plan for the settlement.

9.6 Whilst noting the Appellant’s arguments in regard to viability, the principle of the proposed petrol filling station at this location would appear to accord with the Development Plan (Appendix 1) which directs such uses to edge of town sites preferably on the left hand side of the road leaving town and subject to consideration of their impact on visual and residential amenity. I address such impacts below. I also refer the Board to Paragraph 24 of the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2005) within which it is a major objective to facilitate a competitive and healthy environment for the retail industry of the future. It states that it is not the purpose of the planning system to inhibit competition, preserve existing commercial interests or prevent innovation.

9.7 Paragraph 92 of the Retail Planning Guidelines favours central or edge of centre locations for new retail developments in small towns and villages. In addition the Retail Planning Guidelines requires that shops associated with petrol filling stations should remain secondary to the use as a petrol filling station and that where they exceed 100 sq.m. that the sequential approach to retail development will apply. The floor area indicated on the lodged drawings states the retail unit associated with the petrol filling station to be in the order of 147 sq.m. although this would appear to include a store/office area. I calculate from the drawings that the area excluding the store/office would still marginally exceed the 100 sq.m. criteria (some 106 sq.m.) There is no evidence that any detailed retail impact assessment in regard to any of the proposed ‘commercial’ units was carried out in this case by the Applicant or the Planning Authority.

9.8 The proposed “mixed unit” is described as including three ground floor “commercial” units and a retail unit associated with a petrol filling station. These units (particularly the three not associated with the petrol filling station) are variously described on the drawings and documents as commercial units and/or retail units. The Board will be aware that these terms are not specifically defined Classes of land use as referred to in the Regulations. It would appear therefore that the nature of development as applied for is somewhat open ended and speculative. The Planning Authority have dealt

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 10 of 17 with this matter by way of condition (see suggested condition 30). I consider that this would be a necessary requirement should the Board be minded to grant permission although I consider that the condition should be more specific in terms of the retention of the units as four separate units, nature of uses allowable in such a location and requiring the submission of a further planning application in respect of their first occupation to ensure that the planning authority can properly consider in a public forum issues such as residential amenity, the amenities of the area, vitality and viability and levels of parking provision.

9.9 The absence of a detailed retail impact assessment should be noted although I do not consider that in the circumstances of this case that this would warrant a fundamental objection to the principle of the “mixed unit” as shown (subject to the further comments below). Having regard to conditions that could be imposed in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area I do not object in principle to this aspect of the development proposal. In reaching this view I also have regard to the Retail Planning Strategy for which in its conclusions states that retail provision in smaller villages outside of the principal, second and third tier of the retail hierarchy should be maintained and enhanced in the interests of sustainability.

9.10 Impact on the character and appearance of the area: I consider that the proposed development will have a profound visual impact on the site. The site currently appears as a not unattractive open, undulating field behind the almost continuous stone boundary wall. Although the lands are open and undeveloped there is a variety of vegetation and trees including a number of mature trees along the sites frontage with the road, adjacent to the ditch that crosses the site from south to north and in the lower lying northern section of the site which at my site inspection appeared to suffer from somewhat poor and waterlogged ground conditions. The Board will note the proximity of this section of the site to the ditch immediately to the north. Whilst the site is however undeveloped at present it is not removed from existing development and it is located in what appears to be a transitional area on the edge of the settlement close to both traditional and modern developments. I would not therefore object to a sensitive and appropriate form of development that respects the character of the area and amenities of the site and location.

9.11 Whilst I noted the pattern of more recent development in the vicinity I am not satisfied that the scale of the hotel in particular having regard to its siting, design and height would be entirely sympathetic with the more traditional form of development prevalent in the village. The siting of the building set back behind the proposed vehicular access and car parking areas is in contrast with the traditional pattern of the settlement with its terraced properties immediately fronting onto the road network. I am also concerned in regard to the additional height and visual impact created by the single span pitched roof proposed. I consider that there are likely to be technical alternatives available that could equally create an aesthetically pleasing roof with a lower overall roof height and consequent impact more in keeping with the traditional building form of the village. It seems to me that the roof design may also have a purpose to provide some potential for a future use of the resultant roofspace.

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 11 of 17 Although slightly unclear further to receipt of the further information drawings I would draw the Board’s attention to the increased levels on the site that will also result. The FFL of the hotel for example is given as some 72.20 whilst it would appear that existing ground levels at the point where the hotel runs parallel to the R361 ranges between some 70.5 – 72m. with the lower levels towards its northernmost sections. Other aspects of the design including use of the prominent projecting ‘clock tower’ lift shaft and use of gable roof detailing around the building does not reflect the simpler and more traditional building patterns in the village.

9.12 The building is set back from the eastern boundary with the R361 although I do not consider that the limited landscaping provision shown along this frontage along with the provision of a car park in front of the building provides an appropriate or substantial visual amelioration to the resultant scale and character of building in this setting and location. I am not convinced therefore that the siting, design and height of the hotel at this prominent and important location at the entrance to the village fully accords with the policy of the Development Plan seeking to ensure that new urban developments respect the individual physical character of the towns and villages.

9.13 The Mixed Unit is similarly sited back from the road side boundary with car parking and access areas in front. In my opinion this sets up a somewhat weak urban form dominated by parking and access arrangements along almost the entire length of the site frontage at an important entrance point into the village. I would not necessarily oppose the layout shown to serve the housing proposed at the northern end of the site (and note that the scheme approved to the north appears to have car parking in front of those nearest permitted residential units). However the siting shown for the mixed unit creates neither a generous area for screening and landscaping and neither does it provide a hard urban edge with continuous built form close to the street respecting the more traditional character of the village.

9.14 The Appellant has commented on the visual impact of the petrol station and associated signage and canopy. I note that this was a concern to the Planning Authority who sought clarification of matters relating to the canopy, signage infrastructure and shopfront. This is supported in the Development Plan (Schedule 20) which amongst other matters requires provision of landscaping, signage and consideration to be given to the existing amenities of the area and street scene as part of the criteria for consideration of applications for motor fuel filling stations. In response to the Further Information request the Applicants indicated that as the tenant for the petrol filling station was not yet known such details could not be provided. I consider that in the circumstances and should the Board be minded to grant permission that it should require the submission of further planning applications to deal with all the signage and detailing to the canopy and other areas such as shopfronts. I also consider that should the Board be minded to grant permission that it should specifically exclude from this permission the freestanding monolith sign shown on the road frontage given its location and absence of details. The location of this sign would also appear to breach a requirement in Schedule 20 of the Development Plan requiring all structures to be set back not less than 4.5m.

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 12 of 17 from the street or roadside boundary. In respect of the canopy itself its height would appear to have some regard to the scale of the proposed adjoining building although any projection of the canopy at this point beyond the adjoining building line to the R361 should not be permitted. This could however be addressed by condition.

9.15 Layout and relationships of buildings within development and with surrounding property: I would not oppose in principle the general layout of the detached, semi detached and terraced residential development shown around the northern and western boundaries of the site. I consider however that the proximity and relationship of the housing units on plots 24 – 30 (inclusive) to the proposed hotel would result in a poor standard and level of residential amenity to their proposed occupiers from potential noise, disturbance and activity emanating from the hotel. It also appears to me that the hotel itself is set within a limited curtilage and setting which could itself compound difficulties experienced by those nearest proposed houses. The Board will note that the hotel includes for a large dining/bar/servery area on the ground floor and function room/bar/servery at first floor level. I draw the Board’s attention to the proximity of the house and its curtilage on plot No. 30 to the hotel. This would, in my opinion, result in a somewhat obtrusive relationship. In addition, the proposed windows to the bedrooms at the northern end of the hotel in its north western elevation would be located in very close proximity to the rear garden and rear windows of the house proposed on Plot No. 24. I consider this would give rise to an unacceptable level of overlooking and loss of privacy to the potential occupants of that property. I recommend refusal on these issues. Should the Board be minded to grant permission however I would recommend that the houses on plots 24 – 30 (inclusive) be omitted in their entirety and that the resultant area be given over as enlarged public open space associated with the residential development and an enlarged curtilage to the hotel.

9.16 Condition 34 of the Notification of Decision sought to amend the mixed unit by omitting two of the retail units (No. 2 and 3) and 2 no. 2 bedroom apartments and the provision of private open space in lieu. I consider the extent and quality of private open space shown to serve the apartments at first floor level to be far from ideal as they would seem to offer little quality private space given the access arrangements to adjoining apartment units. Further, the two bedroom units would each appear to fall below the minimum (and lesser) standard of 15 – 20 sq.m. for two or three bedroom apartments close to city or town centres specified in the Residential Density Guidelines for Planning Authorities (there are higher standards for outer suburban areas). Nevertheless I consider that the provisions shown, on balance, would not warrant a recommendation of refusal. The Board should note my recommendation to expand the public open space provisions by omission of units 24 – 30 should it be minded to grant permission. Access to the first floor apartments would have some potential to overlook the garden of the adjoining property to the south although a distance of some 14.5m. from the site boundary to the nearest stairs is retained. I consider this to be acceptable. Any overlooking of this property from the nearest point of the balcony could be prevented by appropriate screening of suitable height. I would however suggest that the proposed bin

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 13 of 17 stores for the apartments be relocated from the point shown on this boundary in the interests of residential amenity.

9.17 There are a number of windows in the gable of the dormer dwelling to the south facing the site. The Board should note that the profile of this dwelling shown on the site sectional drawing 02E received by the planning Authority on the 27th April 2005 does not accurately reflect its orientation. The proposed mixed use building will be some 5 – 5.5m. from this dwelling and it will as such have a significant impact when viewed from that property. However I consider that this would not be an entirely unacceptable relationship given the retained spacing shown. Although the windows in this property face north I consider that some loss of daylight component will still result particularly to the ground floor windows with a more limited impact on the sunlight received. I consider that the overall impact on light received to this property will not be such to constitute a serious loss of amenity to that property through any significant diminution of light received or shadowing of the property. I consider that it would be necessary for the Board to impose conditions regarding boundary treatment at this point to retain an appropriate standard of privacy for the occupiers of this dwelling.

9.18 Access and car parking provisions: The access to the site was the subject of consideration by the Planning Authority during its processing of the application. Internal engineer reports sought a revised site layout plan providing for a single shared access off the Regional Road and this was translated into Item no. 9 of the Planning Authority’s Request for Additional Information dated 15th February 2005. Although the scheme was revised by the deletion of one of the access points proposed to the mixed unit, the scheme retained the provision of the main estate access and a further access into the petrol filling station as part of the Further Information response. The retained access was considered necessary by the Applicants to eliminate customer parking traversing the forecourt area. Condition 34(iv) of the Notification of Decision however still requires the omission of the access from the filling station directly from the regional road in the interests of traffic safety. I consider the duplication of access points is not in the interests of traffic safety and that the traffic turning movements generated by the two access points in such close proximity would create a traffic hazard. I am of the opinion that an acceptable scheme including for the servicing of the mixed unit, petrol filling station and their associated car parking and access requirements would not necessarily be precluded by revisions to the scheme (having regard also to the further comments set out in this assessment) and a single vehicular access arrangement onto the regional road to serve the entire development. The Board should note the criteria 10 of Schedule 20 of the Development Plan which states that petrol stations will not be permitted where a traffic hazard may be created and the further criteria for junction arrangements set out in Schedule 20 (11). Should the Board be minded to grant permission I draw its attention to the comments set out in section 9.3 above.

9.19 I have reviewed the standards applicable for car parking set out in the Development Plan. I consider that the number of spaces proposed to serve the mixed unit is in accordance with those specified. However I consider the

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 14 of 17 provision for the hotel to be below the requirements set out and that an overall provision of some 54 spaces is likely to represent a shortfall in provision. I note that the calculations provided by the Applicant use a standard of 1 parking space per 7 sq.m. for the restaurant public areas. However whilst this might have basis for the ground floor area described as a ‘dining area’ the first floor accommodation is described on tbe drawings as a ‘function room’. I consider that a more reasonable requirement in these circumstances would be the higher standard of 1 parking space per 3 sq.m. applicable to a ballroom, disco or dance hall. I also note that the identified lounge and meeting room areas have also not been separately calculated. A lounge bar has the same higher standard of 1 car space for every 3 sq.m. of public area. I consider that the Applicant’s calculations therefore represent an underestimation of the spaces that would be required and that having regard to the location, nature and scale of the proposed hotel facilities that the provision of 56 spaces is likely to be inadequate. Although a set down space in front of the hotel is shown there would also appear to be no separate overnight coach parking facility. I conclude that the hotel use is likely to result in car parking on the roads and streets in the vicinity to the detriment of residential amenity and traffic safety. I recommend refusal on this basis.

9.20 Drainage provisions: I draw the Board’s attention to the submissions on the file in regard to drainage provisions. This includes a hydrological study provided on behalf of the Applicants. The drawings indicate some increasing of land levels and finished floor levels to accommodate the development above forecast flood levels. Whilst noting these submissions there appear to be a number of outstanding matters in regard to the details shown on the drawings as required by the Planning Authority. This includes retaining sewers laid along curves rather than straight lines between manholes and connections and the design specification for storm water attenuation tanks. To a certain extent such matters could however be addressed by condition (see condition 2 and 3 of Notification of Decision). Although there is a comment on the hydrologists report that a survey of the ditch to the north was carried out as part of the development under construction to the north there appears to be no detailed consideration in the report of the cumulative impact of these developments. This is of some concern having regard to the condition of the ditch at my site inspection which did not appear free flowing and was not clear of vegetation. This appears to be verified in the hydrologist’s report. In addition the Board should note the references in the document to the current twin piped culvert under the Boyle Road which is identified as a major constriction in flows requiring upgrading.

9.21 There was an initial requirement of the Council Engineers for a five metre wayleave for future maintenance on the developed side of the existing drain. This wayleave was not to be infringed upon by the rear boundaries of private sites. The Applicant stated in response that this was not required due to such a wayleave being provided on the opposite bank as part of the development under construction and this appears to have been be accepted by the Planning Authority. I am not however convinced from the submissions and drawings drawings available to me at this time that this is in fact the case. From inspection of the history documents associated with withdrawn file

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 15 of 17 PD/04/2005 which includes the layout of the scheme previously permitted under 03/980 it is not clear that a 5m. wayleave has been incorporated which, in accordance with the Engineers requirement, is not infringed upon by rear boundaries of private sites. The hydrologist’s report notes the importance of such a maintenance strip to facilitate access for regular channel maintenance (vegetation removal). The Board should note that the full requested details of 03/980 had not been received from the Planning Authority at the time of drafting this report. I recommend refusal for this reason although the Board may wish to seek further clarification on this issue prior to determining the appeal.

9.22 I have considered all the other issues raised but it seems to me that they are not so material to the consideration of the planning merits of this case to warrant reaching a different recommendation to that set out below. In conclusion I recommend that permission be refused.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

1. It is a policy of the current County Development Plan to encourage new urban developments to respect the individual physical character of the towns and villages. This policy is considered reasonable. It is considered that the proposed siting, design and height of the proposed hotel along with the location of its proposed parking and access arrangements to the front of the site close to the boundary with the regional road along with the siting of the mixed unit and its similar parking and access arrangements would result in an incongruous form of development on a prominent site that would detract from the established and traditional character and appearance of the village and seriously injure the visual amenities of the area. The proposed development would, therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. Having regard to the proximity and relationship between the proposed hotel and houses proposed on plot numbers 24 to 30 (inclusive) it is considered that the hotel would result in a substandard level of residential amenity to the potential residential occupiers of those houses having regard to the resultant obtrusive appearance, overlooking and noise, activity and disturbance created by the hotel. The proposed development would therefore seriously injure the residential amenities of the proposed residential property in the vicinity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

3. The proposed development which proposes two vehicular access points in close proximity on to the regional road R361 would, by virtue of the traffic movements created endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

4. Adequate car and overnight coach parking spaces have not been provided within the site to serve the proposed hotel development. The proposed development would, therefore, result in on street parking which would and tend to create serious traffic congestion on the adjoining roads, would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and would seriously injure

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 16 of 17 the amenities of existing and proposed property in the vicinity. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

5. Having regard to the submissions lodged with the application and appeal, the Board are not satisfied that adequate provisions have been made for the disposal of storm waters from the development having regard to the capacity of the receiving waters, proximity to other development in the vicinity and absence of a wayleave to ensure for regular maintenance of the ditch to the north of the site and into which the flood waters are intended to discharge. The Board are not, therefore, satisfied that the proposed development would not be in an area at risk of flooding, be prejudicial to public health or would not otherwise seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Philip Green Senior Planning Inspector

20th October 2005

PL 20. 212967 An Bord Pleanala Page 17 of 17