Plans for residential and retail units are turned down

WICKLOW County Council has refused planning for eleven residential units and four commercial units at Newcastle Lower.

The rejected planning application consisted of four four bed semi detached two storey dwelling units, one one bed ground floor apartment, one two bed two storey duplex type apartment, two one bed first floor level apartments, three two bed first floor level apartments and four ground level commercial units.

The application was submitted by John Murphy Forall Property Holdings Unlimited Company and also included plans for pedestrian access from the village main street, vehicular and pedestrian access from the Leabeg Road, connection to existing service utilities, including water main and foul sewerage and ancillary site works, including car parking facilities and the relocation of an existing electrical supply pole.

ONE of the reasons given for refusing the development included the fact it would not be in keeping with other buildings in the area and was therefore contrary to the development plan for the area.

‘It is considered that the proposed mixed use building and three storey residential building would, by reason of their overall design, in terms of height, form, elevational treatment etc, result in the creation of incongruous features on this prominent site within the Primary Development Zone of Newcastle Village, which would be out of keeping with the established built form of the settlement and would seriously injure the visual amenities and character of the area. The proposed development would, therefore, conflict with the objectives of the development plan and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.’

It was further felt that the design and layout of the apartments would result in new and direct overlooking of adjoining properties. There was a lack of communal open space and bicycle parking to serve the apartments. The planning authority also felt that the proposed development would not provide for an adequate level of residential amenity for future residents and would reduce to an unacceptable degree the level of amenity enjoyed by existing residents in the area.

It was also adjudged that the proposed development would endanger public safety by reasons of serious traffic hazard because the applicant had failed to demonstrate that a safe entrance can be provided to serve this development particularly in terms of sightline distances.