Permission for over 50 homes on outskirts of Cork city overturned due to road safety concerns

Seán McCárthaigh

Outline planning permission for over 50 new homes on the outskirts of Cork city has been refused due to concerns that the development would pose a serious road safety hazard because of its location on a “seriously substandard” minor road.

An Coimisíun Pleanála has overturned a decision of Cork City Council which had granted approval in principle to developer, Donal Cox, for the construction of 55 new housing units on a site at Blackstone Bridge, Upper Fairhill, Lower Killeens, Cork.

The plans consisted of the proposed demolition of an existing building and sheds on the 2.76-hectare site to clear the way for the development.

However, the Commission upheld appeals against the local authority’s ruling by three local residents who warned about the number of road accidents in the area due to its steep, narrow and poor condition.

They claimed the road would be unsuitable for any construction traffic while the development itself would “scar the landscape.”

The developer had originally sought planning permission to construct 88 new housing units on the site consisting of 32 houses, 40 duplexes across ten three-storey blocks and 16 apartments in three three-storey blocks.

However, Mr Cox subsequently revised the scale of the plans downwards after council planners said a revised layout would be needed to provide better connectivity with the proposed Cork Northern Distributor Multi-Modal Route (CNDMR).

The local authority had also expressed concern that part of the site lies within a 100-metre corridor of the planned CNDMR.

Outlining its ruling, An Coimisiún Pleanála said the development site is located on a minor local road “which is seriously substandard in terms of width, gradient, and alignment.”

The Commission said the proposed entrance to the development would endanger public safety as it posed a traffic hazard because of the additional traffic turning movements it would generate on a substandard road with restricted sightlines in both directions.

It also observed that the gradient of the road is “too steep”, while the entrance to the development would be on a sharp bend.

In addition, the Commission noted the lack of safety features for pedestrians and cyclists.

The Commission said it was not satisfied with the proposal by the developer to defer a number of road safety issues through to a detailed design stage.

It claimed the road safety concerns warranted resolution prior to any decision to grant planning permission.

The Commission said it was also refusing outline permission for the project because it believed the development was premature pending the final design and layout of the proposed CNDMR.

The developer claimed a road safety audit had confirmed that the proposed access arrangements for the development were safe and fit for purpose and would deliver high-quality pedestrian and cycling infrastructure.

Some locals had also made submissions to Cork City Council to express concern that the development could impact on biodiversity associated with the nearby River Bride as well as about the site’s location close to a potential flood storage area.

Other issues raised include the scale of the development and traffic and road safety concerns.

Cork City Childcare also pointed out to the Commission that there are currently no early-learning or school-aged services in the Killeens area.

It said the impact of the proposed development should be considered in relation to adequate childcare facilities notwithstanding that the project was below the minimum threshold of 75 housing units which would require a creche facility to be provided as part of the development.

A report by a planning inspector with An Coimisiún Pleanála said she did not believe the proposed development would prohibit the development of the CNDMR.

However, the inspector said she had serious concerns about pedestrian and cyclist safety because the road was substandard in terms of width, gradient and sightlines.

“It is my opinion that the proposed development cannot be safely accessed at the proposed site entrance and therefore should be refused,” the inspector stated.

She also did not believe that any amendments or improvements to the entrance to the development could be addressed at a later stage.