Residents of a suburban city housing estate have voiced their concern with the nature of a development under construction on the northern extension of the Waterford Industrial Estate.
The development of six light industrial units by Curran Foods Ltd has led residents of Ashley Court to contact Waterford City Council, with whom they’ve shared their “disgust and disbelief” at what’s going on.
The development has won the ire of residents due to the light and noise pollution they claim the new project is causing, as well as the removal of trees near a stream adjacent to their rear gardens.
However, in voicing their concerns to City Council, it’s been pointed out to residents that its planning office received “no submission from the public in respect of this planning application”.
Ashley Court’s Residents Association has also written a letter to Curran Foods Ltd, in which it repeats the concerns they’ve also outlined to the Council.
Writing on behalf of residents to Mr Pat Curran, Yvonne Cooney said she had been “made aware of several complaints with regard to the continual noise/vibration nuisance emanating from your premises…
“The noise is so loud and of such a continuous nature (especially at night) and of a pitch, that it is detrimental and of considerable nuisance to the local residents and according to our residents impacts their quality of life.”
She added: “At the request of these residents we undertook to contact yourselves with the view of inviting you to meeting with the residents concerned to discuss this issue and look at possible solutions.”
City Council planners recommended planning permission for the project subject to 11 conditions, widely citing “the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area” in doing so.
But residents believe that the project was green-lighted despite concerns raised in the initial planner’s report into the site.
That report cited the absence of an open space/landscaping plan in the initial application as well as a view that the proposal “may also constitute overdevelopment of the site”.
In an emailed reply to Mrs Cooney, Waterford City Council’s Director of Services stated:
“The public planning file on the development containing the application and details of the matters taken into consideration in arriving at a decision is available for public inspection at our offices at Maritana Gate, Canada Street, Waterford.
“There were no submission from the public in respect of this planning application. For convenience I enclose an electronic copy of the planner’s reports and decision.
“We are currently inspecting the site to ensure compliance with the planning permission. When the inspection has been completed, the reports relating to the investigation and inspection may be viewed in the public planning office on file UD57-08.”
In a separate letter to Mr Power, both David and Yvonne Cooney stated their belief that the approved development near their home was in contravention of the City Development Plan.
They wrote: “We are disgusted that (the Council) and the Planning Office sees fit to not even apply its own rules, which show obvious disregard for the Development Plan and draws into considerable doubt the validity of any such plan and makes a mockery of public consultation and the Council’s responsibility of (the) city and its environs.”