Bord Pleanála dismiss traffic concerns to approve permission for Mayo veterinary clinic

AN Bord Pleanála has granted planning permission for a new veterinary clinic in west Mayo despite a recommendation by its own inspector to refuse planning.

Planning permission was granted to Westport vet Tom Fabby to construct a single storey veterinary clinic at Carrabaun, Westport despite concerns that its proximity to the N59 Leenane Road would result in it becoming a traffic hazard.

Mr Fabby stated in his application that the veterinary practice which was established by his father Dave has been leasing premises on the West Road for the last decade. However the site is subject to a planning application for 16 houses and they will not be able to remain there for much longer.

As well as a veterinary clinic the proposed development will also comprise of a shop, consultation rooms, toilets, office, kitchen, store, operating theatre, recovery room, and waiting room as well as 17 car parking spaces, a driveway, landscaped area and single vehicular entrance.

READ: Aldi appeal decision to refuse planning for seventh Mayo store

The proposed development is located on a 0.29 hectare site along the L1815 road adjacent to the filling station at Carrabaun. Mayo County Council granted planning permission for the development last September but it was appealed by local residents to An Bord Pleanála.

In their appeal the residents expressed concern that the local road will not be able to accommodate the increase in traffic and would put the safety of road users at risk.

They also expressed concern that along with approval for the construction of 81 houses at a nearby site, the noise and nuisance from a ‘large animal practice’ will make noise from traffic worse. They also questioned the construction of a commercial enterprise on agricultural land and what distance a commercial enterprise entrance should be from the N59.

In his report to the Board of An Bord Pleanála, Senior Inspector Stephen Rhys Thomas found that there was no reason to refuse permission based on the principle of the development at the location.

He also found that he did not anticipate that the proposed development would generate such volumes of traffic that would lead to a 'perceptible increase in traffic noise and pollution'.

However, regarding the question of how close the entrance should be from the N59, Mr Rhys Thomas cited the County Development Plan which states that if the area is defined as rural, the separation distance between a new entrance for the development proposed should be a minimum of 200m from a national road junction.

He said he considered the location of the proposed development to be rural and the proposed vehicular entrance is well inside the 200m minimum distance requirement and should be refused on this basis.

Mayo County Council planners did not raise issues with the proximity of the N59 but Mr Rhys Thomas said he could not ignore the standards which had been set out. He commented that he was not satisfied that the proposed development either meets the standards set out or has suitably demonstrated that the proposed development will 'not pose a traffic hazard in the context of traffic volumes and the junction with the N59'.

Mr Rhys Thomas recommended the Board refuse the application but the Board decided to follow the assessment of the council municipal engineer who raised no issues in deciding to grant planning permission.

“While the proximity to the road junctions does not accord with the Min Distance for 'other development’, as set out in the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028...it does accord with the required distance for a housing development greater than one unit.

“The Board considered that this factor, taken in conjunction with the assessment of the Municipal Engineer, the setting in close proximity to a petrol station, the roadside set back, and the assessment of the Inspector on the merits of the development, and subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, would be acceptable and would, therefore, be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area,” the Board stated in its ruling.

Planning permission was awarded subject to eight conditions as set out by the Board.