Housing planning restrictions lifted on Crown Square site

Councillors have voted to accept recommendations which could see a 20% cap on residential development lifted at the former Crown Control site in Mervue.

Described by one councillor as “the biggest hole across the city”, the future of the five hectare piece of land turned out to be divisive during lengthy meetings to discuss the Draft City Development Plan 2017-2023.

In their submission, joint receivers Kieran Wallace and Patrick Horkan, had sought amendments to the specific development objectives included in the previous plan.

They stated that the 20% cap (140 units) on residential development had limited the viability of the site, and they sought for this to be lifted.

They further called for a removal of restrictions on site access, which they said compromised connectivity. And, they wanted the reference to a four-storey building height restriction removed, on the grounds that there was capacity to accommodate higher buildings in less sensitive locations within the site.

City Council Chief Executive, Brendan McGrath, had recommended an amendment to the draft plan as follows: “The majority of retail floor space to be dedicated for bulky goods retailing and the balance for local retailing needs . . . parking shall be kept back from Monivea Road, and separated from the Monivea Road by buildings. The design of frontage facing Monivea Road shall be of a high architectural standard.”

He further recommended removal of the current restrictions on residential development (20% cap), access to the site from the Monivea Road, and building heights.

Mervue-based councillor, Declan McDonnell, told fellow members that this was “a very sensitive situation for a lot of us”, but he agreed that the site was not viable without some changes.

“I met the receiver and asked him had NAMA ever advertised the site with the existing restrictions – he said no,” the councillor said.

“They said the site won’t work unless the restrictions are lifted and there is an exit onto the Monivea Road.”

He expressed concern at Mr McGrath’s recommendations that the cap on residential development be lifted altogether.

“I worry that if you don’t put restrictions on residential, you are going to have difficulties,” he said. “I’d like to limit it to 40% (280 units). A full-lifting is too much.”

Fellow City East councillor, Terry O’Flaherty, said that she, too, had had a lot of consultation with residents in the area and, in keeping with their wishes, she sought to keep the plan as it was, except to remove the building cap of 20%.

Senior Planner Caroline Phelan reminded members that the restrictions they were now complaining about had been placed on the site either by themselves or their predecessors on the previous Council.

She agreed with Cllr McDonnell that allowing a greater number of homes would make the site “more acceptable and attractive to get it developed.”

However, she cautioned against leaving the Monivea Road side without an entrance/exit to the site.

“It is a huge site, and you are not going to avoid traffic on the Monivea Road,” she said.

“If you don’t allow access, you’re inviting rear elevation onto that road.”

Brendan McGrath agreed, and said that the changes proposed “probably constituted bad planning.”

“The Crown site is one of the biggest holes in the ground in Galway City, and you could look at it and do nothing. It is a site that adjoins GMIT campus, is proximate to the broader city centre, it will be on the bus corridor, and rather than tying yourselves up in knots, see what will work best for the community.”

He said it would be much better for the community to have a well-designed residential development at this location, rather than a large retail one that closes down in the evenings.

“This is a huge site, in the Galway context, and we do want to limit the intrusion to residents, but as councillors you have to look to the future,” he said.

Cllr Michael Crowe agreed that there were wider matters to be considered when deciding the future of this site. “We have to act in the best interests of the whole city,” he said. “The amendments are in the best interests of this process.”

He proposed that Mr McGrath’s recommendations be adopted, which was seconded by Cllr Niall McNelis. This passed on a narrow margin – nine in favour, eight against, and one abstention (Declan McDonnell).