Planning board veteos Arden Road 99-house proposal

A large-scale development of 99 houses on a 5.98 hectare site on the Arden Road in Tullamore has been refused planning permission by An Bord Pleanála after the developers appealed an earlier decision by Offaly County Council to refuse permission for the project.

Joseph Doorley, c/o Tom Phillips and Associates, Town Planning Consultants of 80. Harcourt Street, Dublin lodged an appeal with An Bord Pleanála on December 15 last after Offaly County Council refused to grant planning permission for a proposed 99 unit residential development on the Arden Road on a plot of land which is currently in agricultural use.

Permission for the proposed development was refused by the Offaly local authority on two grounds, namely that it would materially contravene the zoning objective of the site which is for a business or technology park or strategic employment zone, and secondly the Council stated that the proposed development “is dominated by roads” and results in “a poor design concept” for the site which is “substandard in its form and layout, fails to establish a sense of place and includes a poor quality of urban and architectural design.“ The council added that this would make the development “injurious” to the residential amenities of further occupants and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

In its ruling on the planning application, An Bord Pleanála refused to grant permission on grounds similar to those cited by Offaly County Council in its refusal.

The board cited the fact that the proposed development is located in an area where the stated zoning objective in the Offaly County Development Plan 2021-2027 is “for Business or Technology Park" and said the purpose of this objective is to facilitate large scale employment “in a sequential manner”.

It also pointed out that it is an objective of the council to support the development of Strategic Employment Zones at Arden Road to cater for the expansion of the Midland Regional Hospital and its continued development as a teaching/university hospital and/or a Med or Bio Technology Park with linkages to the hospital.

Therefore, the proposed development “would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

The second reason for refusing planning permission stated that “the dominance of vehicular movement considerations” in the layout design, and “the refusal to achieve an acceptable density of dwelling units” is contrary to the provisions of the Development Plan for the area and the guidelines supporting it, and would be “contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.