Rough time for golf club’s neighbours

Wayward golfers are the source of frustration for a neighbour living beside a Galway golf club as he has collected hundreds of balls that have ended up in his property from the nearby driving range.

Errant golf balls have resulted in a window of his house being broken and damage being caused to slates on his house, while numerous golf balls can be found lying around in his garden, driveway and tennis court.

He is strongly opposed to the retention of twelve golf driving bays at Glenlo Abbey Golf Club. The matter has now been appealed to An Bord Pleanala.

The neighbour, it is claimed, is now the owner of hundreds of golf balls that have been struck by wayward golfers on the driving range.

It has been stated that the original golf driving bays were designed to direct the balls away from neighbour Jim Hughes’ property and this would be the case if those using the facility adhered to the rules and regulations.

But according to Stephen Dowds Associates, acting for Mr Hughes, the design of the golfing bays is only effective if members of the public stay where they are supposed to be – on the mats provided.

“This does not always happen. Golfers come out to positions that are forward and onto grass where balls have landed. Once they hit a ball from that position, there is no guarantee where it will go,” it was said.

It is also claimed that the protective netting that is there to stop errant golf balls from entering neighbouring properties comes down long before the facility is used.

“Golf balls falling on one’s home and garden is not a trivial matter. They are more than a nuisance. A golf ball is a very hard object and can cause injury as well as damage.

“It must also be borne in mind that that the use of a driving range is entirely different from that associated with a golf course. The driving range, with 22 driving bays, can have 22 people hitting balls at the one time,” it is said in the appeal.

In February, Galway County Council granted planning permission for the retention of the practice putting area and twelve additional driving bays. It was subject to four conditions and one of these stated that it could operate from 8am to 8pm.

According to agents for Mr Hughes the potential impact of a golf driving range is greater than a regular golf course because of its intensity of use. They say that the proposal will exacerbate and existing serous situation. It is suggested that there is a potentially hazardous situation for the appellant.