Planning refused for Co Clare homes over impact on Bunratty Castle

Seán McCárthaigh

Planning permission for almost 60 new houses, a shop and offices in Co Clare has been refused because the development would have a negative impact on the popular tourist attraction of Bunratty Castle – a protected structure.

An Coimisiún Pleanála has overturned the original decision of Clare County Council last September to approve the planning application by development firm, Crescent House Limited, to regenerate the site of the former Shannon Shamrock hotel in the village of Bunratty, Co Clare.

The commission upheld appeals against the council’s ruling by the Bunratty Local Development Association and a local resident.

It rejected the developer’s plans for the demolition of the now derelict 115-bedroom hotel which closed in 2009 and the development of 58 houses as well as a convenience store and six retail/office units.

The commission also rejected the recommendation of its own planning inspector to grant planning permission for the project.

Commissioner Mary Rose McGovern said the commission did not share the inspector’s opinion that the proposed development would not detract from the setting of Bunratty Castle or the character of the area.

The commission described the plans as “unsympathetic to the distinctive historic character of the area.”

It observed that Bunratty Castle is “an iconic protected structure which is a national monument.”

The commission said the proximity of the proposed development to Bunratty Castle meant it would materially affect the context and setting of the tourist attraction.

It observed that the Clare County Development Plan 2023-2029 set out plans for Bunratty including the maintenance and enhancement of the village’s role as a prime tourist destination.

The commission said the Clare CDP also provided for appropriate redevelopment of the site of the former Shannon Shamrock Hotel with a mix of uses which supported the village’s tourism function.

However, it said 71 per cent of the current plans provided for residential use of the site when the CDP stated that an over-concentration of any one use of the 2.87-hectare site would not normally be permitted.

The commission also rejected the plans on the basis that the development would result in “sub-standard levels of privacy and residential amenity for the future occupants.”

It noted the planning inspector’s concerns that some of the proposed houses would directly overlook the private gardens of existing properties in Bunratty.

However, it disagreed with the inspector that suitable privacy measures could be addressed by way of imposing a condition to the grant of planning permission.

Crescent House had originally sought planning permission to develop 67 houses on the site but the company subsequently submitted revised plans to reduce the number of units by nine to address concerns raised by council planners.

In its appeal, the Bunratty Local Development Association said planning policy required the site to be used to consolidate the tourism focus of the village but the plans were predominantly for housing.

It pointed out the proposal would provide 50 per cent more houses than were estimated to be needed up to 2029.

The association said the plans and layout of the proposal ignored Bunratty Castle and there had been a missed opportunity to integrate a tourism-related development with the protected structure.

However, Crescent House claimed the appellants were seeking to perpetuate an outdated and unviable single land use of the site which was zoned solely for tourism purposes under an older version of the Clare CDP.

The company claimed the success of tourism in Bunratty was not dependent on the site of the former hotel.

It argued that the current zoning promotes mixed use development without an explicit requirement for a hotel or tourism-related use.

Crescent House also claimed the development had been carefully designed and amended “to respect and enhance the setting of Bunratty Castle.”