Proposed Glanworth development refused permission

Planning permission for the development of new houses on Glanworth’s main street has been denied by Cork County Council on three grounds.

The application, submitted to the Council on March 14, sought to demolish existing structures at 8-10 Main Street to allow for the construction of new residential buildings. Included in the proposed new developments were four 3-bedroom dwellings and six apartments. The apartments included one 1-bed apartment and five 2-bed apartments.

It is noted that the lands are currently zoned as development lands.

According to planning documents, the existing dwellings are semi-derelict and have been vacant since 2005.

“Although roofed they are in dilapidated condition internally and are not fit for renovation. It would be cost-ineffective to attempt to upgrade the existing structure in any form,” the application reads.

Planning documents also noted that a previous owner of the site had obtained permission for a mixed-use development, including a small shop/ post office and nine dwellings.

CHARACTER

Located directly across from the Catholic Church in Glanworth, the current application sought for the development of solely residential dwellings on the approximately 0.16Ha site.

Permission for the development was refused on three grounds, the first related to the character of the existing structures on site, claiming that the demolition of said structures would have a ‘detrimental effect’ on the character and setting of Glanworth’s Main Street. It went on to note that the demolition of the buildings would ‘seriously injure the architectural and historical interest of the area’.

“Notwithstanding that the existing buildings are not protected structures; it is considered that they contribute to the historic urban form and character of Glanworth,” decision documents read.

SCALE

The second point that permission was refused on related to the scale and density of the proposed development, stating that it would constitute ‘over development’ setting out an undesirable precedent for the inappropriate development of other sites with backland areas in the locality.

“It is considered that the proposal would constitute overdevelopment of what is a restrictive site resulting in poor residential amenity, inadequate parking provisions, restrictive turning facilities and insufficient communal open space,” the documents added.

DESIGN

Finally, the development was also refused based on apartment design standards and Ministerial Guidelines for such not being met, based on aspects of the submitted plans.