Kinvara school extension plans halted

A BITTER row involving a “reluctant objector” and changes to a primary school looks set to continue after a decision due on planning permission for an extension to the school was deferred while Galway County Council seeks further information.
St Joseph’s National School in Kinvara, through consulting engineer Paul Feeney of Claregalway, applied for permission in early March to retain a single-storey classroom at the rear of the existing school building, as well as permission for a new two-storey extension to contain three additional classrooms, a general purpose room, circulation areas and bathrooms.
A decision on the development was due this week but late last week, Galway County Council wrote to Mr Feeney advising him that the location for the proposed development is adjacent to a protected structure.
The local authority stated it requires drawings, photographs, photo montages or other visual material to show the proposed development and its relationship to and potential impact on the protected structure. A decision will now not be made on the proposed development until the school responds to this request.
The proposed development was the subject of criticism in an objection submitted to the council in early April from Leahy and Conway Architects, Ennis, on behalf of local resident, Gabrielle Lavelle of 9 Nuns Orchard, Kinvara.
Paul Feeney and Associates subsequently responded with additional information, in which he claimed “many of the arguments made by Ms Lavelle are incorrect and misleading”.
The objection stated that the extension “should not be carried out over two floors” as Leahy and Conway architects claimed this would interfere with Ms Lavelle’s amenity.
The submission stated there is “adequate space on the site to accommodate all of the relevant classroom accommodation over a single-storey extension,” adding that “there are obvious reasons why primary schools should be built at single storey, unless there are overriding reasons for having them as two-storey buildings”.
The Ennis architects claimed the design of the proposed extension “is as a result of an effort to maintain the playing pitches, which have been constructed initially without planning permission and subsequently granted through application for retention”.
“We feel that if Galway County Council had been made aware that the decision to grant retention for the playing pitches would result in an unsatisfactory layout of the school building in an effort to retain that for which retention permission has been granted, that they might have taken a very different position,” the objection continued.
This was subsequently refuted by Mr Feeney, who told Galway County Council that “the proposed extension is not of an unsatisfactory design or layout”.
The objection went on, “We now feel that it is clear that the decision to grant retention permission in this instance has resulted in a very cluttered and inappropriate layout for the school in order to protect these sports areas, which are far in excess of generally approved requirements of the Department of Education for external play areas for a school this size”.
Mr Feeney described this as “an incredulous statement” saying, “one of the reasons that the chosen design was selected is to maintain the play areas available to the children. Surely this is good practice?” he went on.
Ms Lavelle, through Leahy and Conway Architects, called on the school to “make up its mind as to what its primary function is” given that the new sports pitches are being used by adult clubs and groups, as well as the school children.
“Is it a school which optimises the use of its land to provide the best possible environment for the school children or is it an all-round community facility, which has the aim of facilitating community bodies?
“Both these purposes are, of course, important but if one is allowed to override the interests of the other then defective design inevitably occurs. It would appear to us that the present layout is as a result of an essential conflict of interest between the interests of the pupils in the one hand and the desire to create facilities, which are used by a variety of clubs and associations not associated with the school on the other hand.”
“I believe that the answer to this question is fairly obvious,” Mr Feeney countered. “The primary objective of the school is to provide the best possible educational and recreational environment for its pupils. To suggest otherwise is a slur on the fine work carried out by the staff, the board of management and other local people in recent years. The development of the playing area is paramount to the provision of recreational space for the school children.”
The objection from Leahy and Conway outlines that Ms Lavelle’s property and the “rear gardens of several of the houses in Nuns Orchard Estate in general will suffer significant loss of amenity as a result of the construction of the two-storey school with windows looking directly into their back gardens.”
This is made worse, according to the submission, by the fact that the school grounds are “considerably higher” than a number of the houses in Nuns Orchard Estate.
Mr Feeney defended the two-storey design, pointing out that part of the existing school building is over two floors, adding that it would have a smaller footprint than a single-storey one, maintaining the play areas for children. He also pointed out that it would be more economical to construct and more energy efficient.
Mr Feeney stated that the building is located as far “as is reasonably possible” from Ms Lavelle’s house. He described as “absurd” the suggestion “that it [the astroturf] be unnecessarily removed so as to construct the extension”.
The objection to the proposed extension was also critical of the location of the general purpose room.
“Locating a general purpose room so far from the entrance, as in this instance, is a bad decision and the decision to make the extension a two-storey extension is of itself something which should not be done in a primary school unless absolutely necessary,” it said.
Mr Feeney, in his additional information submitted to the council, stated that the location of the general purpose room with its own entrance and exit outside the school building ensures “the security of the school and its pupils”.
“We summarise and conclude on the basis that we have sought to provide the most aesthetic, economical, practical and efficient design for the new school building. We have also naturally sought to protect and preserve the amenity areas available to the school for their recreational activities,” he concluded.
Michael Leahy of Leahy Conway described Ms Lavelle as “a very reluctant objector in this matter” but added, “she feels that she has been severely disadvantaged by the numerous development decisions made by the school in the recent past. She now feels that a wholly inappropriate layout has been produced as a result of these manifestly defective decisions.”
The council will make a decision on the future of the extension after it receives further information concerning the nearby convent protected structure.