Chamber supports Lynch request for oral hearing

HAVING been in opposition for more than a year, those for and against controversial plans for a €34 million retail development on the outskirts of Ennis have both come to an agreement – that An Bord Pleanála should hold an oral hearing to decide the fate of the project.
According to a submission lodged by Ennis Chamber with An Bord Pleanála, opposing the granting of planning permission, the business group have supported the request made by Michael Lynch Limited that an oral hearing be held. Ennis Chamber are urging members of the public to have their say on the development plans by attending the hearing.
“We support the call for an oral hearing in this matter as we feel that the issues involved are both complex and of significant public interest. We believe that given the very large number of livelihoods, which would be affected by this proposal that it is in the interests of the planning system to hold an open public hearing at which members of the public can be informed and can participate and we would very much welcome such a hearing,” states the submission.
In January, Ennis Town Council refused planning permission for the development on a site at the Limerick Road/Tobarteascain, deeming it “premature”. Developers Michael Lynch Ltd have appealed this decision to An Bord Pleanála stating the reasons for refusal can be “readily overcome” through a series of engineering solutions. They also insist the planned development will not compete with business in the town centre.
However, this has been disputed by Ennis Chamber who believe that if granted planning permission, the development could lead to a ‘doughnut’ effect in the town.
According to the submission prepared by Leahy & Conway on behalf of Ennis Chamber, much of the data submitted by the developers in support of the proposal is based on data, which given the downturn of the economy should now be considered out of date.
“We can establish from available retail data that the proposal would constitute a significant over provision of both retail and comparison floor space for the Ennis and Environs area,” the submission states.
According to the Chamber, there are more suitable sites for retail development in the town centre and closer to the town centre. They state the developer’s reasons for excluding a number of sites “do not appear to us to be satisfactory”. “Of the five sites included in the sequential test, including the site of the application, the development of the application site is the one, which is likely to have the most negative impact on the well being of the town of Ennis,” the submission states. 
The document argues that the proposal effectively constitutes an out-of-town development. “As such, it will have a range of highly negative impacts on the historic fabric of the town of Ennis. We are greatly concerned at the economic sustainability of the town centre trading model in the event that the proposal as applied for proceeds.”
The submission argues that granting planning permission would be a contravention of a “significant element” of Government-issued national and regional guidelines as well as the Ennis and Environs Development Plan.
The Chamber states: “We strongly support the reasons for refusal given by Ennis Town Council in regard to prematurity in the absence both of adequate wastewater disposal facilities and means for adequate disposal of surface water. We are particularly concerned at the proposal to build on flood zone A and B areas, given the disastrous experiences of Ennis during the flood records of 2009.”
Concerns were also raised about the means of accessing and exiting the proposal as “it is very unlikely that there will be any retail synergy between the proposed retail area and the existing town centre”.
The Chamber believes the proposal “significantly contradicts the broad thrust of planning and retail policy for Ennis”.
The submission goes on to state the development is advantaged due to its proximity to the motorway, raising concerns that visitors will be directed towards the motorway when leaving the site instead of towards Ennis.
“The main advantage to the site would be provided by public expenditure, which may result in a very negative impact on the existing town centre historic building stock, which may again require further such expenditure. This represents a distortion of proper market forces rather than an application of them,” it argues.
The Chamber stresses in their submission it is “opposed neither to competition nor to development and we would welcome a new appropriately sized retail development at a town centre location. We believe, however, the proposal is the wrong size and in the wrong location.”