Planning for Glenmore scheme refused on design grounds

An Coimisiún Pleanála has refused planning permission for a proposed 38-unit residential development on an infill site to the front of the Glenmore Wood estate on the Dublin Road in Mullingar, upholding Westmeath County Council’s earlier rejection of the scheme.

In a decision finalised on February 13, the board refused permission, on the grounds that the layout and positioning of perimeter blocks – particularly Blocks C and D – would “militate against an attractive pedestrian environment” and be of insufficient urban design quality on a prominent site. As a consequence, the development would be contrary to key objectives in the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021-2027, and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The appeal was lodged by Andrews Construction Ltd after the council refused permission in September 2025 for the scheme at Glenmore Wood. The mixed apartment proposal comprised 19 two-bed ground-floor units and 19 three-bed duplex units in five three-storey blocks around a central open space with parking for 38 cars in a courtyard, and also parking for 116 bicycles.

As well as the appeal by Andrews Construction, observations were lodged by five parties. These claimed the scale, height, density and massing of the development would result in an overbearing impact on the existing development, and that the open balconies would result in overlooking of existing properties. They contended that this was a “build-to-rent” development and that the units were not suitable for long-term living.

Concerns were also raised about traffic, including emergency access for vehicles and the adequacy of car parking.

In her report, the planning inspector concluded that the Dublin Road site, approximately 1.6km from Mullingar town centre, should be regarded as a suburban or urban extension and that, in principle, it was suitable for higher-density development, despite concerns over public transport provision.

While close to bus stops serving local and regional routes, including to Athlone, Dublin and Drogheda, the inspector noted that these do not meet the definition of “high frequency” services under national planning guidelines. As a result, the site did not formally qualify as a highly accessible location. However, the inspector observed that it had access to all public transport currently available in the town, including bus links to Mullingar train station, around 2km away, and took into account plans for dedicated cycleways and the new Mullingar town bus service. Therefore, she was satisfied that a higher density could be considered, subject to good design and proper integration with the surrounding area.

Turning to the design, the inspector rejected the view that the three-storey development would be overbearing or represent an abrupt transition in scale. On the issue of overlooking, the report states that existing boundary walls, road separation and distances of between 20 and 33 metres would prevent direct intrusion into neighbouring gardens. The inspector further found that the overall massing of the buildings had been appropriately addressed through pitched roof profiles, material changes, setbacks and projections designed to break up the visual bulk of the scheme.

However, while there were “a number of positive design elements to the scheme”, she did agree with the conclusion of the county council that the proposed arrangement did not present a well-considered urban design response to the existing environment, and she especially mentioned the fact that the footpath along the eastern side of the road was to be flanked by a high blockwork wall which would provide an unwelcoming pedestrian environment.

She considered the level of parking low for the character and location of the site and had concern over the detail of the Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) arrangements.

In conclusion, she recommended refusal of the application on the grounds that the development would militate against an attractive pedestrian environment, would be of insufficient urban design quality and seriously injure the visual amenities of the area; that it was deficient in car parking provision and that the plan did not demonstrate how SuDS were incorporated into the design.

The decision of the board was that the refusal should be on the first of the three grounds recommended. The board did not agree with the inspector that the car parking provision constituted a reason for refusal, and while they noted the third SuDS concern, decided not to pursue that matter given the substantive reason for refusal.