An Bord Pleanála overturn Longford hub decision

An Bord Pleanála has overturned a decision of Longford County Council planners for a remote working hub in Drumlish. The national planning authority cited an incomplete file as the reason for their decision.

Applicant Seamus Gallagher was approved by Longford council planners for a change of use of an existing public house and first floor accommodation into a mixed use building. The new build would consist of a remote working hub area and self catering apartments at St Mary's Street, Drumlish, Longford.

That decision was appealed to An Bord Pleanála by appellants Brian McNamara and Owen Quinn. The disused public  house occupies the ground floor of part of the premises. There are also two commercial units on the ground floor.

Longford County Council planners decision, from October 6 last, was to grant permission, subject to nine conditions, including: the use is restricted to short-term accommodation, the external finishes, considerations regarding refuse storage, parking, water and drainage, and a development charge.

Architect Liam Madden submitted an appeal on behalf of appellant Brian McNamara. The grounds include the appellant contesting ownership, the applicant has not demonstrated sufficient legal interest or estate in the application lands to enable him to carry out the development if a permission were to be issued, the lack of provision for parking or rubbish and that the plan was unsustainable and contrary to proper planning and development.

The second appellant, Owen Quinn, cited privacy, the lack of access routes to the rear or side of the property, the capacity of the foul sewer and waste system, and the parking provisions.

In her assessment of the application An Bord Pleanála Inspector Dolores McCague recommended that the proposed development be granted, however the Board refused the permission.

The Board acknowledged the zoning objective for the site to enhance the town core uses including retail, residential, commercial, and civic. However the absence of accurate drawings of the existing and proposed development were not available on the file.

The Board said: “On the basis of the submissions made in connection with the application and the appeal, it is considered that the proposed development would not accord with apartment standards set out in the Development Plan and would seriously injure the amenity of future residents. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”