Planning permission rejected again for Kingston housing estate

Galway Daily news Planning appeal over 91 houses & apartments in Athenry

A Bord Pleanála has refused planning permission for a housing development in the Kingston area of Galway City, rejecting an appeal against the council’s decision.

Diagnostic Medical Imaging Limited sought approval for the construction of 84 houses and apartments on on land at Rosario, Kingston.

Galway City Council had previously rejected the plans last April, saying that the design of the estate would create a road traffic hazard, and expressing concerns about whether the developer had sufficient legal interest in all of the lands in the plans.

Local residents from Garraí de Brun estate said that the developer did not have did have legal right to carry out proposed connectivity works on roads, footpaths, and junctions outside of their site.

It was this reason which was cited by An Bord Pleanála in upholding the city council’s original decision to refuse planning permission.

Their decision said, “It is considered that the applicant has failed to provide evidence of consent, or sufficient legal interest, for the inclusion of lands forming part of the site of the proposed development, and which are essential to enable the development to be implemented.”

“It would therefore be inappropriate for the board to consider a grant of permission for the proposed development in these circumstances.”

The project would have consisted of four blocks of apartments ranging from 4 to 5 storeys in height, containing a total of 65 apartments.

Along with those, it was proposed to build 19 detached and semi-detached houses, as well as a children’s creche.

The original plans had been for a total of 74 homes and a residents’ gym, but the number was increased by the developer during the application process with the city council.

In the appeal, Diagnostic Medical Imaging argued that the issue of land ownership and interest is a “legal matter rather than a planning matter”, and that enough documentation had been provided for a valid planning application.

The assertion that they did not have sufficient legal interest in the lands which make up the planning application was also challenged by the developer.