Thumbs down for Seapoint plan

A major revamp of one of Salthill’s most recognisable and popular locations been refused by the higher planning authority.

The owners of Seapoint had planned for a major redevelopment that included both a leisure centre and gaming use facility, along with a residential units.

Late last year Galway City Council refused planning for the demolition of a large part of Seapoint to make way for a new leisure centre, retail unit, café and apartments.

City planners had a problem with the design of the proposed structure and felt it would not fit in with the public realm.

Seapoint is one of the most stand-out locations in Salthill and a traditional attraction for visitors to the resort but its redevelopment has now been stalled for the time being.

Applicants Paul and Aishling Freeney of Oldside Enterprises, the owners of Seapoint, were seeking permission for the major development at the Upper Salthill location.

Plans include the demolition of properties at this location including the four-storey building with six apartments to the rear, along with the demolition of the single-storey extensions to the rear of the original Seapoint building.

It was planned that a new three-storey building would be constructed on the site, with leisure use on the ground and first floor, along with seven apartments overhead.

The original building would have been retained, with minor refurbishments, inside and outside, as part of the multi-million euro investment in the property.

It was also the intention to provide a new four-storey build with a ground-floor retail unit, first floor café and a duplex five-bed apartment above.

An Bord Pleanála has now backed the City Council’s refusal of the plan.

The Board stated the proposed development would provide a poor standard of design, in the context of the character of the surrounding built environment and public realm amenity areas.

It was considered that the scale, mass and form of the proposed structure was not acceptable. Also, its setback from the number of adjoining properties was equally not in their favour.

Planners said the proposed development would fail to achieve a high-quality design to respect the distinctive character of the adjoining properties on the Upper Salthill Road.

It would also fail to contribute to the public realm as “a high profile and visually prominent location.”

In their appeal, the applicants had argued the development was vital to the future sustainability of the existing commercial use of the site.

There were a number of submissions to the proposed development and one referred to the lack of justification for the demolition of an historic building.

Others referred to a lack of communal space and parking in the vicinity of the building while concerns were also expressed over noise and inappropriate design and mass of the proposed building.