Council rejects Peter Casey’s apartment plan for Ludden House site

Former presidential candidate and Greencastle-based entrepreneur Peter Casey has been refused planning permission for a major apartment development on the site of the fire-damaged Ludden House in Buncrana.

Donegal County Council refused permission for the development, citing concerns over overdevelopment, flood risk, traffic safety, and the impact on residential amenity.

Mr Casey of Claddagh Resources had applied to demolish Ludden House, which was badly damaged by fire in May 2023, and to construct two apartment blocks on the site. The proposal included a three-storey apartment block containing 12 units, and a second block stepping down from three to two storeys, also comprising 12 apartments.

As part of the proposal, agreement in principle had been reached with Donegal County Council to transfer five of the 24 units to the local authority for use as social housing.

Ludden House was significantly damaged in a fire just weeks after plans had been announced to convert the building into an apartment complex intended to accommodate refugees.

The planning application attracted 16 third-party objections, with neighbouring residents raising concerns about the scale of the development and its potential impact on the character of the Links View Park estate and the wider Ludden area. Issues cited included road safety, traffic congestion, parking provision, loss of privacy, and overshadowing.

Resident Deirdre Cooper objected because the development would constitute overdevelopment of the site. “Apart from being inappropriate for the local area, the size and scale of the apartment blocks mean the site cannot accommodate any meaningful amenity for residents, nor close to adequate parking provision,” she stated. “It represents material overdevelopment and would severely compromise the amenity and day-to-day lives of existing residents in the locality.”

Paul Kelly expressed concerns regarding traffic generation during both the construction and operational phases of the development, stating that the local road network may not be capable of safely accommodating increased vehicular movements.

“Increased traffic brings safety and noise concerns for existing residents, children, pedestrians, and cyclists,” he said.

Jennifer McFeely also objected, highlighting traffic congestion and safety concerns at the site entrance, which is accessed through a private estate off a minor road, which is “already inadequate due to poor line of sight from both directions, suffering from speeding traffic in both directions, a dangerous blind spot that does not need the extra traffic and hazards.”

John McConnell of Links View Park raised concerns about overlooking and loss of privacy, stating that the proposed buildings would directly overlook private gardens and windows and could significantly reduce daylight to neighbouring homes.

Similar concerns were raised by Paul Grant, who said the increased height of the development would block natural light to nearby properties, including his own home.

Parking provision was another major issue. The proposal included 27 parking spaces, but Eugene Bradley objected, stating that this was “totally inadequate” and posed a health and safety risk to residents and pedestrians. 

He pointed to previous parking problems at the site when it was used as office premises. “Even when extra spaces that were previously added to the front of the building, this was not always sufficient, meaning cars parked along the roadway within Links View Park, which created a significant health and safety risk to the cars parked along the road, other traffic users, pedestrians, as well as children of the adjoining houses.”

In its decision, Donegal County Council refused planning permission for nine separate reasons. 

The council found that the scale of the development was not compatible with zoning objectives for the area, which seek to protect residential amenity and limit development to minor works. The planning authority also cited that the proposal would introduce a significant residential population into an area subject to flood risk.

Additional refusal reasons included overdevelopment of a constrained site, creating an undesirable living environment for prospective residents, inadequate parking provision, insufficient amenity space, poor design and layout, traffic safety concerns, lack of confirmation of water and wastewater servicing, and insufficient stormwater management proposals.

READ NEXT: Carndonagh’s sporting story set to take centre stage

The council concluded that the proposed apartment blocks would be visually dominant and out of keeping with the established character of the surrounding residential area, and that granting permission would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area in which the derelict Ludden House is situated.