Appeals are lodged against hotel
AN APPEAL has been lodged with An Bord Pleanala against the construction of a hotel on a site at Wexford Bridge.
CoAnt Entertainments Limited, which is run by the Neville brothers Colm and Anthony, had received planning permission from Wexford County Council, earlier this month, for the Bridge Park Hotel, a mixed development incorporating a 135-room hotel, ground floor retail space, underground car parking, and nine residential units, with a sail-inspired front facade.
The permission came on the back of an An Bord Pleanala decision to uphold a council grant for a new music venue at the old Metro 17 premises, which is also owned by the Nevilles.
However, An Bord Pleanala has now received appeals against the decision from two people who had made observations on the initial plan.
John Molloy, with an address at Orchard Close, Ardcavan expressed concerns about the overall scale of the building, remarking that it would be the tallest building in Wexford at eight storeys and he had questions over evacuation measures in case of emergencies and, also, wondered if the fire service could deal with a building of that scale should they be required to.
He pointed out that the site was at risk of flooding and argued that an underground car park should not be placed in such a zone.
He also voiced concerns about the cost to the public if such a facility were to flood. He raised further questions about water proofing of the car park and the de-watering process when it came to construction stage.
In terms of traffic, he questioned the notion of the Local Authority carrying out junction improvement works over a five-year period, believing that these should be done either prior to, or in tandem with, the development. Construction traffic, he believed, would also be problematic.
Finally, he expressed his belief that Wexford had a sufficient amount of bed spaces through other hotels and B&Bs and feared that such a development would result in unemployment in already established premises.
Acting on behalf of dental technician John White, of South Main Street, John Mullins and Associates Consulting Engineers expressed concerns about the demolition of Number 84 North Main Street, pointing out that it would result in the destruction of a habitable house, and arguing that planning permission had not been sought or received for that.
He argued that no provision had been made to prevent flooding of North Main Street through the open access that will replace 84 North Main Street, and no provision had been made to prevent flooding in neighbouring properties, he added.
Mr Mullins also raised the question of de-watering the car park site, pointing out that his client’s rear wall was just 16m from the boundary wall of the underground car park, and voicing concerns about required deep excavation.
He said: ‘Previous experience of de-watering from the Key West basement development a number of years ago, which did not extend to the same depth as is proposed, was that it resulted in substantial structural damage occurring in neighbouring properties and particularly the Presbyterian Church on Anne Street. Adequate details as to how the basement is to be constructed should be provided with the application to avoid similar negative impacts on neighbouring properties.’
Mr Mullins also raised concerns about the size of the building, in terms of blocking out his client’s view and natural light, saying that, at present, Mr White enjoyed direct sunshine through seven windows, three of which provide lighting to the stairway, two to the apartment on the second floor and one to the surgery waiting room and one to the practice workshop.
The proposed development, he said, would tower 20m above his client’s property and, with 50 windows in the new building, would also invade his client’s privacy.
If the development went ahead, he said, it would restrict an extension plans his client might have, and felt that, all things considered, the development would devalue his client’s property.
Mr Mullins also voiced concerns over the change of streetscape, arguing the that replacement facade for No 84 onto the Main Street broke a definite streetscape and would detract from, rather than enhance the visual impact. He also feared that the link area could be subject to anti-social behaviour as had been seen in previous such link routes in the town.
‘The covered link between the Cornmarket development and the Main Street, a number of years ago, had to be closed because of vagrancy and anti-social behaviour. Such an access adjacent to my client’s surgery will seriously injure his enjoyment of his premises and access.’
Mr Mullins also voiced concerns about the site’s former use as a petrol station and the possible risk of contaminated soil, and believed the number of parking spaces to be too few when it came to allowing for extra traffic from people using the function room.
Finally, he challenged the architectural quality of the building, saying: ‘The development has clearly failed to consider in any way the neighbouring properties and has ridden rough shod over their amenities and their right to enjoy their properties.’