Mayo County Council refuse planning for housing development in Balla

A PLANNING application to develop 28 houses in the centre of a Mayo town was refused over fears it would become a traffic hazard.

Mayo County Council refused planning permission to Hatchbrook Ltd to develop 28 dwelling houses in Balla stating that the development would pose a threat to public safety as a result of extra traffic generated from it.

The planning application included a proposal to develop four two-bedroomed houses, 17 three-bedroomed houses and seven four-bedroomed houses on a greenfield site with access onto the L17051 road known as the 'back line' which runs parallel to the main street through Balla.

READ: Ryan calls for changes to TII powers amid Ballinrobe bypass delay

The council outlined that the road would need an upgrade to facilitate an increase in traffic and they were not in a position to 'commit to such an upgrade'.

A number of dwellings are currently located along the back-line including the Elm Gardens estate which consists of 12 dwellings.

In the planning application, the applicant stated that the proposed 3.5 acre site is centrally located within easy walking distance of the town centre, both schools, bus transport links and to other town amenities.

Mayo County Council planners accepted that the proposed scheme represents a good housing mix of detached and semi detached units but requested a revised site layout plan as well as a combined Road Safety Audit.

The Road Safety Audit prepared by Coakley Consulting Engineers highlighted issues with the width of the L17051 which has a carriageway width of up to 4.5 metres. The recommendation of the audit was that the applicant shall liaise with the Local Authority to investigate opportunities for improving pedestrian facilities along this route.

The proposal was assessed by the Castlebar Municipal District office who noted that there are pinch-points due to boundary walls along the route of the L17051 and expressed concerns with the amount of additional traffic along it.

“An upgrade of the L17051 would be required to facilitate the increase in traffic associated with this development along with the provision of pedestrian/cycling infrastructure to encourage sustainable mobility and connection to existing and planned infrastructure in Balla. The upgrade of L17051 will require design, public engagement, Part 8 Planning and an approved funding source. Mayo County Council are not in a position to commit to such an upgrade at this moment,” the office wrote in the assessment.

As a result of the assessment, council planners recommended a refusal for the proposed development stating that there is currently no capacity to provide pedestrian and cycle routes connecting the development to the town centre and ‘thereby a new access route onto the L17051 would pose a threat to public safety by reason of traffic hazard’.

“The proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and the obstruction of road users due to the movement of the extra traffic generated. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area,” the planners stated in the schedule recommending refusal.