A proposed fast food take away on the Central Garages site on Tramore’s Main Street has been refused by An Bord Pleanála after an appeal by the applicant following Waterford County Council’s original refusal.

The proposal, lodged by Mr Tommy Farrell, included the change of use of a retail unit and part of the garage on the site to a 60 square metre take away. The premises has operated in its current guise since the mid-1990s.

In refusing permission, Waterford County Council stated that the proposed development “would impact negatively on the residential amenity of the area, specifically the adjoining residential property by reason of associated noise and odour”.

In a detailed appeal to the County Council’s decision, the appellant noted that the unit, prior to its retail use, had operated as a fast food outlet and that such facilities “make a major contribution to the vibrancy” of a tourist town like Tramore.

The appellant also noted his intention to close the take away at 11.30pm “so as not to attract pub trade” and that the proposal had received no objections from residents on Patrick Street.

An Bord had no official response from the County Council to this appeal on file.

In a comprehensive assessment of the case, An Bord’s Inspector U Crosse wrote: “While the proposal would create an active use during the day and night in this tourist town, most likely in high season, this is not sufficient justification for the use…

“While I acknowledge that the applicants have suggested a closing time of 23.00 hours is conditioned thereby preventing the pub trade, I consider that this would not go far enough, in my opinion, to preventing an adverse impact on the residential amenity of the proximate residential properties by reason of noise.”

The inspector added: “Given the nature of a take away facility, as opposed to a restaurant, noise levels in the vicinity of such facilities are likely to cause an undesirable effect.

“The applicant in this case has not presented any evidence to suggest that noise levels associated with this facility would not impact negatively on the adjoining property. In this regard I consider the facility would be likely to impact negatively on the amenity of the residential property to the north.”

In conclusion, Cross stated that the proposal was “unacceptable in terms of its likely impact on the residential amenities of adjoining residential properties.”

The take away would “be likely to cause undesirable effects on the properties in close proximity by reason of noise associated with the operation of the proposed facility.

“The proposal would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”