New Portmarnock village centre rejected on appeal
PLANNING permission for a new village centre in Portmarnock has been rejected on appeal to An Bord Pleanála, against the recommendation of the Board’s own inspector.
Fingal County Council granted permission for the development in January of this year but An Bord Pleanála have overturned that decision following an appeal by a neighbour of the proposed development, Patrick Borza and Bill and Antoinette Porter.
Mr Borza, who runs Borza take-away objected to the development on several grounds including the conversion of what has been a public car park to a private car park for the new village centre.
Mr Borza was also concerned that foul sewers and water pipes on his property would be affected by the development and that the works would interfere with his business.
Bill and Antoinette Porter, who live opposite the proposed development appealed the decision of Fingal County Council on the basis that the height of the development was contrary to the local authority’s policy of protecting the visual amenity of the area.
The couple believe that the proposal was out of context with surrounding buildings and would overlook adjacent properties.New Portmarnock village centre rejected on appeal
The proposed high density car park would cause severe congestion and tail-backs according to the Porters who also said the development posed a hazard for children attending St Marnock’s Primary School and local residents.
The couple also feared that the if the development was allowed to go ahead, it would set a precedent for three and four storey developments in the area.
After an assessment carried out by the Board’s inspector, Keiron Dunn, he recommended that Fingal County Council’s decision be upheld and said that the development should go ahead, subject to a number of conditions.
Mr Dunn found that the development would ‘not seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity’.
The inspector also found that the development would not be prejudicial to public health and would be ‘acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience’.
The Board however, disagreed with its inspector and ruled that planning permission be refused for the project for two reasons not listed by the objectors to the development.
In its ruling, the Board found fault with some of the apartments planned in the development.
The Board found that because some of the apartments were single aspect or small in size or close to office units, the result would be a ‘substandard form of development’ and would ‘seriously injure the residential amenities of future occupants.
The Board’s second reason for refusing permission for the development was what it called a ‘lack of clarity’ regarding phase two of the project.
The Board said that the ‘absence of clarity’ with regard to phase two of the development would result in ‘piecemeal and disorderly development’ and would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development of the area
The proposal by Portmarnock Village Centre Limited was to demolish six existing buildings adjacent to Borza take-away on Strand Road in Portmarnock and construct a three-storey mixed office, retail and residential building.
Fingal County Council planners were supportive of the project, believing it to be well-designed and that it offered the opportunity to provide a new focal-point for the village.
By John Manning
Fingal Independent 10/12/2005