Donegal Town créche objection dismissed by An Coimisíun Pleanála
Donegal County Council decision upheld by An Coimisíun Pleanála regarding Small World Créche in Donegal Town
An Coimisíun Pleanála dismissed an appeal against Donegal County Council’s decision to give condition approval for the retention of a soft landscaped play area as an extension to an existing play area of a Donegal Town creche, after gas tank safety concerns were listed as a reason for the objection.
The appeal was lodged in July against the works concerning Small World Créche in Drumlonagher, Donegal Town, after they obtained conditional retention permission for the play area extension, which also included the construction of a landscaped buffer zone to include a 1.8 metre-high timber fence.
It was the creche’s fourth attempt at gaining permission from Donegal County Council, with previous applications dating back to 2022.
A report written by An Coimisíun Pleanála inspectorate, Philip Maguire, summarised the grounds of appeal by Michelle Mahon, of Drumlonagher, highlighting gas tank safety, restricted access to essential infrastructure, safety risks created by the play area, concerns raised by the gas supplier, inadequate parking provision and impact on existing businesses, CCTV privacy concerns, consultation with the Chief Fire Officer, and repeated retention applications.
Maguire wrote that gas safety concerns regarded the original fire-resistant protective fence around the LPG tank (adjacent to play area) being removed and the replacement not treated with fire-resistant paint, whilst also highlighting that the appellent felt that the concerns of the gas supplier should be “given significant weight” and that the supplier requested engagement with the Planning Authority to discuss safety issues.
It was also noted that the appeal highligted that the “Crèche severely limits parking availability for appellant’s customers” at M&N’s Laundrette and Dry Cleaners, and also requested the Planning Authority to “examine whether the positioning and operation of the CCTV cameras complies with planning and data protection obligations.
A summarised response from Harley Newman on behalf of the applicant, Louise
Gately, to the appeal was included in Maguire’s report, which argued that “the appeal grounds lack proper foundation or substance and cannot readily be sustained.”
Responding to the appellant’s gas safety concerns, it was considered that “the issues concerning the LPG tank are health and safety issues that are not relevant nor governable under the planning code,” and that the “applicant has sought to facilitate access to the LPG tank for many years and maintained and replaced the protective fencing complete with fire-resistant paint.”
The response concluded that proposals “would not seriously injure residential amenities or impact on traffic or pedestrian safety, complies with the Development Plan and would allow for increased outdoor space for the children at the crèche facility.”
A response was also forthcoming from the Planning Authority, which argued that the gas tank “location, protection and access is the landlord’s responsibility,” and CCTV and privacy concerns “regarding the monitoring of activity is a civil matter between the parties.”
The appellant provided An Coimisíun Pleanála with a further response which stated they were “pleased to see works carried out to address/ensure safety of the LPG tank, but remain concerned about the length of time that it took for them to be executed,” whilst requesting confirmation of a yearly inspection report confirming that the tank remains compliant af safe.
It was stated that concerns “related to the safety and wellbeing of the children attending the créche” were “raised in good faith” and noted that “the overcrowding of the car park has now been resolved and expresses hope that this arrangement will remain in place for the future.”
The response submitted that “the responsibility that the gas tank remains safe and properly maintained should rest with the landowner, applicant and relevant planning authority should permission to grant be upheld.”
Maguire recommended that the decision to grant planning permission for the proposals be upheld, writing that the proposals “would not seriously injure the residential amenities of the area or property in the vicinity, would not endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard or impact on public health, including that of the occupants.”
The Planning Commissioner, Mary Rose McGovern, signed the order in agreement with the inspectorate’s report on October 27, with five conditions listed, imposed for the interests of clarity, to ensure that the overall development is carried out in accordance with the previous permission, residential amenity, sustainable urban drainage, and public safety.