212219

for the construction of 6 no. residential units on existing infill residential site in the existing Cuil na Canalacht housing development, the development will consist of 2 no. 3 bed semi-detached houses, 4 no. 3 bed townhouses. All associated site development works and services. Access to the proposed development will be via existing access road serving Cuil Na Canalacht previously approved under pl. ref. no. 12/9011 & 06/091 (Ballinasloe Town Council). Gross floor space pf proposed works: 611.2 sqm.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposal was refused due to inappropriate design and excessive density, lack of pedestrian connectivity, road safety concerns regarding the L4603, and significant unresolved environmental issues relating to flood risk and potential impacts on the River Suck Callows SPA.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The proposed design, scale, and density are considered excessive for the location and fail to provide a satisfactory urban environment or adequate usable open space for residents.
  • The development lacks sufficient pedestrian connectivity to the wider network and fails to meet road safety standards, specifically regarding the proposed retaining structure and setback from the L4603 road.
  • The planning authority is not satisfied regarding the feasibility of wastewater disposal, flood risk management, or the potential for adverse impacts on the River Suck Callows SPA in the absence of a Natura Impact Statement.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Objective UHO 7Objective UHO 8DM Standard 1Objective TI 5Objective TI 11DM Standard 21Objective WW1Objective WS12Objective NHB1Objective DS6Objective NHB 2Objective NHB 3DM Standard 40Objective FL1

Decision Document Summary

Crownbell Ltd proposed the construction of 6 residential units (2 semi-detached houses and 4 townhouses) on an infill site at Cuil na Canalacht, Pollboy, located approximately one kilometre south of Ballinasloe town centre. Galway County Council refused the application on multiple grounds, primarily citing that the layout and density were unsatisfactory and failed to integrate with the existing urban form. Additionally, the proposal was deemed deficient in terms of pedestrian infrastructure and ...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.