An Bord Pleanála has refused planning permission for a mixed development of homes, shops, and a supermarket in Athenry.
Ghost Zapper Ltd, part of the Comer Group, sought approval to build 59 houses and apartments, as well as a Lidl supermarket and three other commercial units.
The development was to be on a site at the south-east of Athenry, next to the Clarin River, and close to the protected structure Athenry House.
Galway County Council ultimately refused planning permission for the project due to concerns about its impact on Athenry House, lack of assimilation with the area, flood risks, and road safety hazards.
This decision was appealed to An Bord Pleanála by the developer in April 2022.
An oral hearing on the appeal was held in October 2022 at the Raheen Woods Hotel in Athenry at the appellant’s request.
The residential element of this proposal was to consist of 28 three and four-bed houses and 31 apartments.
The business side of the project would include one building with two commercial units, a separate café building, and a supermarket with 2,662m² of commercial floor space.
The developer also intended to demolish a derelict outbuilding of Athenry House and refurbish the old country house as a community and heritage centre.
Access to the estate was to be via Swan Gate, with a pedestrian entrance at the corner of Clarke Street and Cross Street via the existing Athenry House gate.
An Bord Pleanála’s inspector recommended that the development be approved, but the board ultimately overruled that recommendation to refuse planning once again.
The board agreed with the inspector that the reasons for refusal based on concerns about flooding, traffic, car parking, and tree removal were not warranted.
However, planning permission was refused due to the proximity of the supermarket at the northern end of the site to Athenry House.
“In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation, the Board shared the concerns of the planning authority regarding the mass, volume, and scale of the supermarket unit towards the northern end of the development.”
The decision went on to say that, “The lack of adequate separation distance from the protected structure would detract from the visual amenity of the area and would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”
