1. Masters in Planning and Sustainable Development
PD6214 RESEARCH PAPER: PLANNING & SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Public Participation in the Planning Process: A Retrospective View of
Contested Development- A Case Study of the Castlerock Estate,
Castleconnell, Co. Limerick.
Áine Bourke
Student no: 111380481
UCC Centre for Planning Education & Research

2. 2
Public Participation in the Planning Process: A Retrospective
View of Contested Development- A Case Study of the
Castlerock Estate, Castleconnell, Co. Limerick.
Áine Bourke
Masters in Planning and Sustainable Development
In the planning world, much emphasis is placed on public participation,
particularly within the local planning system. The idea behind public participation
being carried out at this level revolves around the thought process that
engagement with the public and the planning authorities will create more
effective, efficient and sustainable planning of development for the future of local
areas. However, it has become evident that there are a number of different levels
in which participation with the public can occur, some of which are much more
effective than others, having the ability to impact results into the future of a
development and its effect on the surrounding area and people.
The process of reviewing objectors feelings to proposed developments in a
retrospective manner is something which is rarely, if ever, done. The way in
which an objector feels regarding developments which affect them ties in with the
importance of allowing the public to participate in the decision-making process. A
review of objector’s opinions and feelings towards developments could provide
valuable insight into the way in which it is perceived now, whether anything
needs to be improved upon or learned from for the benefit of the area and any
future similar developments.
This research involves two parts; investigating the planning process and its
interaction with the public, and investigating the opinions and feelings of
objectors to a specific development- the Castlerock Estate in Castleconnell, Co.
Limerick- to determine how they feel now that the development has been built
and given time to become embedded into the area. This investigation studied the
key points of the objection determining, overall, that while objectors are generally
content with the development today, there are still underlying issues with some
of the points originally raised.
Keywords: Public Participation, Planning System, Contested Development,
Development Review, Local Authority

3. 3
Table of Contents:
Chapter Page
Chapter 1- Introduction 6
Chapter 2- Literature Review 8
Chapter 3- Methodology 16
Chapter 4- The History of the Development 20
4.1- The Nature of the Development 20
4.2- The Context of the Development 20
4.3- Issues and Recommendations highlighted in the Planning
Report 21
4.4- The Issues Raised by the Objectors 22
4.5- The Issues highlighted by the An Bord Pleanála
Inspector 24
4.6- Noteworthy Conditions 25
Chapter 5- Interview Analysis 28
5.1- Why did people object to the proposed development
and how do they feel now? 30
5.2- How do the objectors feel about the development
today, 13 years after it was given planning permission? 46
5.3- What would you change about the development if you
could? 47
5.4- Given that the development has (mostly) been completed
and knowing how it turned out, would you still object again? 49
5.5- Thoughts of the objector on Public Participation in the
Planning System 50
Chapter 6- Discussion 52
Chapter 7- Conclusions 55
Bibliography 58
Appendix 1- Interview Scripts 62

4. 4
Appendix 2- Development PLACE Maps 85
Appendix 3- Castlerock Estate Planning Documents 88

5. 5
List of Figures:
Figure Page
2.1- Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969) 10
5.1- Are you an owner/occupier? 30
5.2- Reasons for objection in terms of access 32
5.3- Is access still an issue for the objectors? 33
5.4- Reasons for objection in relation to layout/design and density 36
5.5- Are layout/design and density still an issue today? 37
5.6- Reasons for objections relating to recreational green space
provisions 38
5.7- Is the provision of recreational green space still an issue? 39
5.8- Reasons for objection in relation to the treatment of Rock Lodge 40
5.9- Is the treatment of Rock Lodge still an issue? 41
5.10- Reasons for objection in relation to trees on site 43
5.11- Is the treatment of the trees still an issue today? 44
5.12- Reasons for objection in relation to the loss of a high amenity
Site 45
5.13- Is the loss of a high amenity site still an issue today? 45
5.14- Given that the development has (mostly) been completed,
and knowing how it turned out, would you still object to it? 49
List of Tables:
Table Page
5.1- Objectors points picked up on by the Planning Authority &
An Bord Pleanála 29
6.1- Issues which could have either been corrected by the Planning
Process, or were inevitable in their outcomes 54

6. 6
Chapter 1- Introduction:
The idea behind this research originated from a thought process which
questioned people’s feelings around new developments and why we do not look back at
the decisions that we have made in the past in order to examine how they have turned
out after a period of time, particularly in cases where the proposed developments had
been contested. The Irish Planning System was introduced in 1963 in order to gain
control of the development occurring in the country. From this time new developments,
or expansions of development, were required to gain permission from the city or county
council before any building or construction could take place.
This research intends to investigate the planning process and its interaction with
the public, and to investigate the feelings of objectors at the time they objected to a
specific development in relation to how they feel now. The first part of this research
looks at the planning system as a whole, how it works and the role public participation
plays in the decision-making process on specific development. This was done to
explore the reasons we include public participation in our planning system, at what
levels we partake in this process and its effectiveness at these levels, with an emphasis
placed on this in relation to objectors opinions on a specific development.
The second part of this research looks at the case study of the Castlerock Estate
in Castleconnell, Co. Limerick, which was objected to at the time of its proposal, and
resultantly taken to An Bord Pleanála in an appeal. This development was granted
permission some 13 years ago and has since been developed. This investigation will
study the feelings of the objectors in order to determine whether they still feel the same
way about the development today, or if their opinions have changed over time; have
their fears been brought to life or were they premature?
This research aims:
 To investigate the process of the planning system and its emphasis on public
participation in order to determine the level at which they interact at.

7. 7
 To investigate the feelings of objectors to a development which was given
permission a number of years ago compared to how they feel now.
 To open a dialogue into whether planning authorities should conduct
retrospective reviews of development in order to amend issues which have
arisen as a result of a grant of permission and learn from past decisions to aid
future decision making.
It is evident throughout the following paper that these aims and objectives have
been carried out, with interesting findings discussed in the final chapters.

8. 8
Chapter 2- Literature Review:
The Planning and Development Act (PDA) 2000 is a document which lays out the
way in which planning is carried out on a legal basis in Ireland today. This Act,
according to Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government,
“remains the basis for the Irish planning code, setting out the detail of regional planning
guidelines [...] as well as the basic framework of the development management [...]
system” (2015). This act states at the very beginning that it aims “to provide, in the
interests of the common good, for proper planning and sustainable development
including the provision of housing” (PDA 2000, pg.18). This idea of sustainable
development and working in the interests of the common good are inherent in the
planning system today where planners are encouraged to work towards planning “for
place (spatial and physical) and people (cultural, political and social)” (Silver, 2014, pg.
104), doing what is best for the benefit and interest of the most people possible. With
doing this decision-making based on what is felt to be best for the common good and in
the interest of planning and sustainable development, the practice of participation with
the public has been introduced into the planning system to aid this. These will all be
discussed to gain insight into the process of public participation in the planning system,
how decisions are made, and the profession’s standpoint on review within the planning
system.
The planning process in Ireland is technical but relatively straight forward in
terms of how decisions are made on applications for proposed developments. If a
development does not fall under what the Planning and Development Regulations state
is exempted, an application for the proposed development must be made to the relevant
planning authority. When submitting an application, “the applicant shall within a period
of 2 weeks before the making of a planning application- (a) give notice of the intention to
make the application in a newspaper in accordance with article 18, and (b) give notice
of the intention to make the application by the erection or fixing of a site notice in
accordance with article 19” (Planning and Development Regulations, 2015, pg.58),
within which must state precisely what is intended to be developed in order to inform the
public. These Regulations also state that the site notice must be erected and legible for

9. 9
five weeks for the public to view it from the date that the planning authority receive the
application. Within the application, all the relevant maps and drawings must be included,
and upon being deemed valid, the application is made available for the public to view.
Once an application has been received by the planning authority, the public, or any
relevant bodies, have five weeks to make submissions or observations on the proposed
development. These must be acknowledged and considered by the authority in their
decision, and cannot be determined until the five weeks have passed, in order to ensure
those wishing to submit have a chance to do so. This decision has to be made within
five to eight weeks after the application is submitted subject to no requests of further
information. This puts the decision making process on hold, and upon a decision being
made, each person or body who objected or submitted on the application will be notified
of said decision. Once a decision has been made the applicant, along with those who
objected, or submitted, have a period of four weeks to submit the decision to An Bord
Pleanála for appeal if they wish to do so; a feature of the Irish planning system which is
almost unique in the world. This appeal board has the power to overturn or reinforce the
decision made by the planning authority, however, only the applicant or those who
made a submission or objection have the power to seek an appeal.
The theory of public participation in the planning system is one which is widely
discussed and researched, particularly surrounding questions on the various levels of
public participation that can occur and how it should occur between the public and the
planning authority in order to carry out effective and sustainable planning. Kørnøv
(2007) discussed how this idea of public participation has the ability to improve planning
by creating an active relationship between the planners and the public. This, in turn,
opens a dialogue between the planners and the communities, who often have a better
knowledge and more information about their local area than that of the planners.
However, with this he also states that while there is general support for the thought to
conduct public participation, “it can be difficult to ensure that it actually happens and
works satisfactorily” (pg.720). This is important to remember when it comes to thinking
about why there is public participation in the planning process and the impacts it can
have on the positive future of an area for both the society and the environment
impacted, as well as the economy. Adding to this, Creighton (2005) also discusses the

10. 10
importance of carrying out public participation in the planning process, stating that the
concerns, values and needs of the public being incorporated into governmental
decision-making is the root of participation. With this participation should include good
interaction between those making the decision (the planner) and those members of the
public who wish to participate (pg.7).
Research surrounding the theory and practice of public participation conducted
by Arnstein (1969) is likely the most influential and referenced work on the topic. Her
piece ‘A Ladder of Citizen Participation’ (1969) discusses the various levels of
participation and how there is a significant difference between conducting an “empty
ritual of participation and having the real power needed to affect the outcome of the
process” (pg.216). This thought of participation being an empty ritual hinges on the lack
of power distribution that so often occurs where only some, the more powerful in
society, benefit. In the case of planning, this side of power which so often benefits as a
result of empty participation can often be the developer and in order for decisions to be
made in the interests of the common good and sustainable development, participation
needs to be more inclusive with the public rather than just a rubberstamp to say it has
been done.
Fig. 2.1- Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation
(1969).

11. 11
Arnstein discusses eight rungs of a ladder which represent the various levels of
public participation that can occur. These levels range from the non-participation rungs
of Manipulation and Therapy to the rungs dealing with the degrees of citizen power
which include Partnership, Delegated Power and Citizen Control. While these rungs
represent quite different sides of the spectrum, the middle ground of the degrees of
tokenism could be noted as the ones which take place most often within the Irish
Planning System. These rungs include Informing, Consultation and Placation. Within the
rungs of informing and consultation the public can hear what is being proposed and
have their thoughts, feelings and opinions on the matter heard. However, within these
levels the public does not have an assurance that what they say is actually taken into
account. The slightly higher level of placation, where the public have the right to advise
but the decision-making power remains with the planners, would appear to also be
popular within the Irish planning system, particularly within the public participation that
surrounds the decision-making process on a planning application.
Irish planning and environmental law is required by the United Nations’ Aarhus
Convention and the 2003/35/EC Directive to ensure “that every citizen has a right to
participate in decision-making on environmental matters” (Scannell, 2011, pg. 3). This
Convention and Directive have been introduced into and ratified by Ireland, making
compliance with them necessary and legally binding.
The Aarhus Convention is a framework built upon three pillars, the second of
which relates to public participation in environmental decision-making. This pillar,
according to the Convention, gives the public the right to participate in the making of
decisions which may have an environmental impact and are related to planning. The
United Nations’ Implementation guide to the Aarhus Convention (2000) states that this
pillar is divided into three sections; the first of these relates explicitly to public
participation and specific activities/developments. Article 6 of the convention outlines
regulations that each party must follow. These regulations include those which state that
the public must be informed of these specific activities, such as within proposals for
development, “early in an environmental decision-making procedure, and in an
adequate, timely and effective manner” (Article 6(2)). This includes setting up a

12. 12
procedure to allow opportunities for the public to participate (6(2)(d)(ii)), allowing for all
the relevant information to be obtained and examined by the public as they so wish
(6(2)(d)(v)), and providing reasonable time frames to inform the public and allow them to
participate. The article also enforces that the public can submit comments or objections
on any proposed applications (6(7)), “shall ensure that in the decision due account is
taken of the outcome of the public participation” (6(8)) and that the public is informed on
the final decision that is made.
The regulations set out by the Aarhus Convention aforementioned are put in
place in Ireland through the 2003/35/EC Directive which aims to provide for public
participation in creating and allowing plans to go ahead that have been amended with
regards to the thoughts and opinions of the public, and public participation. This
directive further sets out what is stated in the Aarhus Convention and ensures that the
member states, such as Ireland, who have ratified the convention and directive fulfil
their duties on a legal capacity to ensure that those members of the public who wish to
participate on a decision they feel strongly about have the ability to do so.
As mentioned at the beginning of this section, the Irish planning system follows
these regulations strictly and carefully in the technical process of allowing for and
carrying out public participation. However, as discussed with the different levels and
types of participation, such as Arnstein’s ladder and Creighton’s participation
continuum, the level on which planning partakes in and interacts with public participation
is just as important as the act itself. A balance between the levels of Placation, which
allows the public to advise while the power to decide remains with the planning
authority, and Partnership, which “enables them [the public] to negotiate and engage in
trade-offs with traditional power holders [the planners and the developer]”, as discussed
by Arnstein (1969) could be noted as being an ideal level of public participation for the
Irish planning system, particularly in the case of contested development. This level of
participation allows for balance between the society, the economy and the environment
to be reached where the points raised by those who object are heeded and taken
seriously with all stakeholders in the development and its future, having their points
taken into consideration and negotiated on. The idea that participation is best done as a

13. 13
“continuum” where four steps of informing and listening to the public, engaging in
problem solving and then developing agreements also fits in with these levels of
placation and partnership (Creighton, 2005, pg.9). Combined overall, these would allow
for an effective and efficient level of public participation between the planning authority,
the public, and the developer to ensure developments reach their full potential while
suiting the needs of everybody involved.
This theory and practice of public participation in the Irish planning process
should also be relevant to the way in which decisions are made in relation to specific
developments. It is evident throughout literature based around strategic decision-
making that “the relationship between an organisation and its stakeholders” is highly
important (Lenz, 1980, 1981; Nutt and Backoff, 1987: cited in Streib, 1992, pg.349).
Within this statement, organization can be substituted with planning authority, while
stakeholders can be substituted by a developer and the public impacted on by the
proposed development in question. Moote and McClaran also input a similar thought on
decision-making and public participation in the planning process, stating that it is “a
basic goal of public participation, intended to ensure that the public interest is being
met” (1997, pg.476).
As previously mentioned, the planning system in Ireland has implemented
regulations surrounding public participation and inclusion within the planning process.
With this, there have also been laws and regulations put in place surrounding the
process in which a planner makes decisions. Both of these are interlinked within the
Planning Regulations and can be seen with policies such as those which state that
while a planning authority must make their decision on a development within 8 weeks of
the receipt of application, they “shall not determine an application for permission until a
period of 5 weeks, beginning on the date of receipt of an application” (Regulation 30,
pg.77). This enforces that decisions cannot be made before the time for (public)
submissions or objections has elapsed. This regulation ties in with the legislation within
the Act such as 34(3)(b) which states that “a planning authority shall, when considering
an application for permission under this section, have regard to- any written
submissions or observations concerning the proposed development made to it in

14. 14
accordance with the permission regulations by persons or bodies other than the
applicant”. Together, the Act and the Regulations do allow for public participation to
occur effectively as decisions cannot be made until after the appropriate period for
public submissions has passed, with any submissions having to be taken into account,
and have had due regard for, when the final decision is being made.
While it is evident that there is a working process for public participation to
interlink with the decision-making process in order for more sustainable development to
occur in the interests of the common good and proper planning, this only works if the
public do in fact submit on a proposed development. The only provision for the planning
authority to set up public meetings regarding development is within the drafting of a
development plan.
Research into decision-making and best practice is often done with results
concluding the most appropriate ways to make decisions coming down to following
specific steps. An effective decision-making process, according to the University of
Massachusetts Darthmouth (2016), has seven steps which will aid in ensuring that
“more deliberate, thoughtful decisions” are made (pg.1). These steps include identifying
the decision to be made, which in the case of planning applications is whether or not to
grant permission, gathering relevant information, weighing up the evidence, and taking
action, with the final step being to review the decision made. These steps are very
important to follow in terms of making a decision, and can be applied to any discipline or
profession in terms of best practice and how a decision should be made.
This final step of reviewing the decision made is one which could be noted as
important in terms of best practice in the planning process. As discussed by the
University of Massachusetts Darthmouth (2016, pg.2), this final step involves evaluating
the decision to grant planning permission for the, then proposed, development in order
to conclude whether or not it needs to be rethought and reevaluated. Other sources
which explained the process of decision-making and how it should be done in terms of
best practice, such as Swenet.org (2004), included the final step of making decisions as
“follow-up and decision evaluation” in order to examine the decision over time and
determine whether what did occur matches the desired results of the time. Literature

15. 15
surrounding planning and decision-making in management by Hill and McShane (2008)
also included a “Rational Decision-Making Model” within which the final step to making
rational decisions came the review process. This step explained that a decision “should
always” be evaluated after “a suitable period” of time to decide whether the decision (to
grant planning permission for the proposed development) was a good one, with a
reevaluation process carried out if negative results are found.
Within the Irish planning process, these steps for making good and competent
decisions on development proposals always seem to be followed up until the final step
which is review. While those members of the public can have the planner’s decision
reviewed in terms of appeal, and there is an entire review process laid out in legislation
surrounding the process of creating and monitoring development plans, there is no
review process set out in legislation for the planning authority to ever review the
decisions they have made in the past. Research into whether other planning systems
outside of Ireland carry out this process of reviewing decisions made on specific
developments has also appeared to come up negative. The International Manual of
Planning Practice details the various planning systems worldwide, however when words
such as ‘review’ and ‘assess’ were searched, the main hits relating to planning review
processes were linked to the review of development plans. While this process of review
appears to be popular, it was not evident that specific retrospective reviews of
developments have been legislated for in any country, worldwide.
Much of the literature found and consulted during the research stage regarding
planning and decision making related to management and business as opposed to
planning in the sense being discussed. When consulting planning literature, the review
proportion, if mentioned at all, surrounded review of development plans, with nothing
discussed, or mentioned, relating to the final stage of decision making as (retrospective)
review. This may be something that could, and should, be looked into in future research.

16. 16
Chapter 3- Methodology:
The method chosen to carry out this research mainly consisted of conducting
interviews with objectors to the Castlerock Estate development, who were willing to
participate and discuss their objections. This case study was chosen on the basis of
meeting certain criteria, which included being heavily objected to, appealing the
council’s decision to An Bord Pleanála, the development being given permission despite
objections, being built, and being in use for a number of years. These parameters were
important to be met for the carrying out of this research as the development had to be
contested in order to interview people, and it had to have been built a number of years
ago in order to have allowed people enough time to have genuine opinions and feelings
about the development as it stands today.
A list of objectors was compiled from the Limerick City and County Council
intranet database and the Castlerock Estate planning case file (ref. 02/710). From these
sources, it was discovered that some 17 people objected to the development. An
attempt was made to contact all of these objectors, however, not all were still in the area
or willing to be interviewed. From this list of 17, nine objectors were willing to be
interviewed regarding their feelings to the development then and now, a feedback rating
of 53%.
Once interviews were organised relevant documents such as the objection
letters, the planning report and decision to grant, and the An Bord Pleanála Inspector’s
Report and decision to grant, were distributed, via email, to each interviewee. The
interview was recorded with the verbal permission of each objector to allow for a more
in depth analysis of answers given. Each objector was kept anonymous to allow and
encourage them to express their feelings and opinions freely. With this, a cover letter
from the Centre for Planning, Education and Research in University College Cork was
presented to each objector to show that this research is valid and genuine.
The history of the case study development and the way in which it was dealt with
by both the planning authority at Limerick County Council and An Bord Pleanála is
discussed first. This chapter is broken up into segments such as ‘The Nature of the

17. 17
Development’, ‘The Context of the Development’, ‘The issues and recommendations
highlighted in the Planning Report’, ‘The issues raised by the objectors’, ‘The issues
highlighted by the An Bord Pleanála Inspector’, and ‘Noteworthy Conditions’. These
were discussed in this order to explain the nature of the case and how the development
came to be, tying in with the decision making and public participation within the planning
process.
The interview questions were carefully chosen with a specific reason for asking
each. The questions were broad and open ended, which allowed those being
interviewed to expand on their answers. Prompts for each answer were also provided to
aid and encourage the interviewer to expand more so as to get the most out of each
interview.
The first question ‘Can you confirm that you did object to the development in
question?’ was asked to ensure that those who were being interviewed did object. This
was asked as it was discovered, when organising the interviews, that some were initially
unaware that they had objected. If any interviewee answered no to this question, an
additional question exploring why they believe their names were provided on objection
letters and on the file relating to this case on the Planning Authority’s intranet database.
A second part to this question asked the interviewers if they are “an owner/occupier”.
When asking this question it was also stressed that it did not have to be answered if the
objector was uncomfortable with the question. This question was asked in order to gain
an insight into people’s investment into the area, with the thought that owner-occupiers
would have more investment into the area than that of renters.
The second question asked was ‘Why did you object to this development?’ with
objectors being given the opportunity to answer freely before additional prompts relating
to the various objection points were given. This was done in order to gain an insight into
why each individual objector objected to the development, specifically relating to each
objection point, as the same letter was sent by each, allowing for the possibility that
some objectors did not feel as strongly about certain points than others. With this, each
objector was asked if they had any other reasons for objecting that they would like to
discuss.

18. 18
The third question asked ‘How do you feel about this development today, 13
years after it was given planning permission?’ which allowed the objectors to expand
and give their opinions on how they feel about the development today. With this
question, each objector was also asked what they like or dislike about the development.
This question intended to get objectors to expand more on their answers in order to
expand on their feelings about the development today.
The fourth question asked objectors ‘Is there anything about this development
that bothers you?’, with prompts such as the design/layout of the development, the open
space provisions, pedestrian and vehicular access and the treatment of both Rock
Lodge (the protected structure on the site) and the trees, being given to encourage
objectors, again, to elaborate more on their answers. This question was asked to gain
more of an insight into how the objectors feel about the development now, particularly if
they did not expand in the previous question regarding their likes and dislikes.
The final questions asked the objectors ‘Given that the development has been
(mostly) completed and knowing how it turned out, would you still object to it?’. This was
asked in order to gain insight into the feelings of the objector regarding their thoughts on
objecting and interacting with the planning system. With this, an additional question
asking ‘Would you change anything about the development if you could?’ was designed
to allow the objectors being interviewed to expand on their thoughts of how the
development could be made better in their opinion.
The research being carried out is largely qualitative, with much of the collected
data being based around opinions and memories of those proving the information. The
analysis of this data is also aided by quantitative methods consisting of graphs and
charts depicting numbers and scales for each analysis point between each objector.
The interviews were analysed by taking specific points and questions from the
research and comparing and contrasting the objectors’ answers to each in order to
determine an overall consensus of feelings and opinions relating to each point being
discussed. Points such as access, layout and density, recreational green space and the
treatment of Rock Lodge and the trees on the site were all discussed regarding the

19. 19
objectors feelings towards them then and now. The question surrounding how the
objectors feel about the development today was also analysed, specifically relating to
the main points which objectors stated they liked and/or dislike, in order to gain insight
into their feelings today. An analysis of the things that objectors stated they would
change today if they could was also done to examine those points that they feel should
be altered to improve the development today. The question surrounding would you
object again was also scrutinized to determine how many of the objectors felt it was
important to still object to the development.
Public participation in the planning system was also analysed in terms of
additional answers that some of the objectors gave surrounding their feelings on the
topic and how they interacted with the planning authority surrounding this development.

20. 20
Chapter 4- The History of the Development:
4.1 The Nature of Development:
The Castlerock Estate is located in Coolbane, Castleconnell, Co. Limerick. Planning
permission was applied for this estate in 2002 for the development of 160 dwelling houses,
6 duplex houses and 6 apartments with landscaped parkland and all necessary roads,
walls and drainage connections over a 6.34 hectare site (ref. 02/710). This proposal was
phase 2 of a larger housing development on the land for which Phase 1, which entailed the
construction of 87 no. dwellings with landscaped parkland and all ancillary & site works and
new entrance, along with the alteration of the entrance and boundaries to existing house,
was granted planning permission in 2001 (ref. 01/2275). Despite multiple objections from
local residents and resident groups, across various grounds, permission was inevitably
granted for this Phase 2 development by Limerick County Council, and subsequently, An
Bord Pleanála (see Appendices 2 and 3).
4.2 The Context of the Development:
The Planner’s Report for this second phase stated that the land on which the
development would be located had, according to the 2001 Castleconnell Local Area Plan
(LAP), been zoned for residential use and placed within Phase 1, of three phases, of the
order in which land was to be developed in and surrounding the village over the next 20
years. This LAP identified lands which were deemed suitable for residential development
and broke them down into phases regarding the order in which they were considered to be
most suitable for development, with a policy relating to development being carried out
according to these phases.
Therefore, in terms of the suitability of this land for the level of development that the
applicant proposed, it was found that the planning application was in line with the policy of
the current Castleconnell LAP, relating to which the Planning Report Assessment stated
that “it is the policy of the Plan that Phase 1 be developed first” (pg.1). This meant that the
development was, in principle, acceptable to carry out.

21. 21
4.3 The issues and recommendations highlighted in the Planning Report:
Within the Planning Report, it was stated that the Planning Authority were generally in
favour “of the layout of this scheme and the concept behind it” of this proposed Phase 2
development being carried out, with the exception of some concern regarding the
development’s design.
These concerns included reorganisation of some housing located on land in the north
east corner of the site which had previously been laid out in the LAP as being reserved for
access to future potential development land. The reorganisation of some units in the rear of
the proposed development was deemed to be necessary in order to provide sufficient
overlooking and passive surveillance of the proposed public pedestrian route, via Coolbawn
Lane, so as to curb any potential antisocial behaviour and aid with public safety on the
route. While there is a provision of a large open space within the site, concerns by the
planner in relation to the lack of smaller open spaces nearer to the houses were raised,
suggesting that specific houses be omitted in order to make two new pockets of open space
available which would provide safe spaces for young children to play closer to their homes.
The terraced housing was proposed without front garden space, however it was stated in
the Planning Report that the authority “would be anxious to ensure that all dwellings have a
front garden” (pg.3). With this it was also suggested that the aesthetics of the estate could
be improved by “softening the car parking by breaking it up with landscape” (pg.3) and
redesigning roads so as to encourage the reduction of traffic speed which would be
prominent on the proposed straight roads.
With these concerns assessed, recommendations of further information were
requested. These specified issues such as site layout to be revised where the
aforementioned access point to potential future development land is blocked, that the
proposed pedestrian route via Coolbawn Lane be passively surveilled by specifically
reoriented houses, and that revisions of design were to include new, specified, pockets of
open space be submitted. With these, the terraced houses with no front garden provisions
were to be redesigned with at least 6 meters of front garden space, the estate aesthetics
were to be improved by the softening of the parking provisions through landscaping, and
traffic calming measures were to be planned for the estate’s roads. Requests for information

22. 22
on potential future issues such as lighting plans for the safety of people in the estate were
also sought from the developer.
4.4 The Issues Raised by the Objectors:
This development was met with a number of objections from local residents, all of whom
submitted the same objection letter to the local authority, with additional letters outlining
further points being submitted separately by both The South Castleconnell Resident’s
Group and another objector, ‘G. & P. Waldmann’. The main letter focused on 8 specific
points with which the local residents were concerned in relation to the proposed
development.
The first point related to the ‘Validity of the Planning Application’, with objectors stating
that the application was invalid due to a technicality in that some of the map’s lacked North
Arrows.
The second point related to the site itself, with objectors stating that no thought had
been given to the special nature of the site, which they considered to be an area of high
amenity, in relation to the development. Despite the site being zoned for residential
development, objectors felt that there was no thought given to the LAP statement regarding
how the “quality of the design is the main criteria on which housing development will be
assessed so that the protection of high amenity landscape features will be ensured”, with
the site being threatened by such a development.
The Protected Structure, Rock Lodge, an 18th
Century home, and its curtilage would be
impacted upon by the proposed development given that a substantial proportion of the
houses are sitting within the view, thus materially contravening the LAP, which states that
the view of the surrounding parkland from the north of Rock Lodge is a protected view
(marked V4).
The fourth point on this objection letter related to the fact that some of the trees on the
site which are outlined in the LAP, along with the tree lined avenue, will be lost to houses.

23. 23
Along with this, a misleading tree survey was provided in which around 20 trees are
missing.
Objectors note that one of the access points to the site via Belmont Road is lined with
houses, meaning that future access will be blocked.
In terms of the design and layout of the proposed estate, some houses will create
overlooking and loss of privacy to existing owners on Coolbawn Lane, while the insertion of
the proposed types of housing are unsuitable and out of character for the area. Objectors
noted that the LAP dictated that the “quality of design is the main criteria on which housing
development will be assessed and that house design will be appropriate to the architectural
character of the area”.
The impact of the proposed development on the existing roads is something that the
objectors felt concerned about. With this they stated that the proposed site access off
Belmont Road was not realistic given the scale of the development and the grade of the
road, being a small country road which is not likely to handle predicted traffic coming from
the estate, coupled with what is already there. The safety of pedestrians on the road was
also a cause for concern given the lack of footpaths and road markings on the only realistic
pedestrian route into the village. There were also concerns regarding the proposed
pedestrian route into the village which is “inadequate due to its size”, the existing pinch
points which make footpaths unviable, and the fact that this small lane serves as the only
vehicular access point for c.12 houses.
The final point surrounded the provision of recreational areas/green space within the
site concluded this main objection letter. Within this, objectors stated their concern for the
lack of adequate green space/recreational areas for the large number of residents, with
what was allocated being unsuitable for children playing due to its location being far away
from the highest densities of housing and its nature as wetland.
In terms of the objection made by The South Castleconnell Residents Group, 3 points
were emphasised as being important to be noted regarding this development. These
included Access, Public Roads, and Site Design and Layout, all of which raised the same
points as the main objection letter. In addition to this, a further point was raised stating that

24. 24
terraced housing “is unacceptable and will detract from the environment” (Castleconnell
LAP 2001) given that these types of houses are inappropriate for an historic rural village
and will ruin the natural amenity of Castleconnell. With this it was also noted that the other
concerns raised in the main objection letter were also important to be noted.
A further objection (G. & P. Waldmann) was also submitted in relation to the previous
submissions. This objector stated that they “could find nothing to alleviate our concerns and
our objection”, asking that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) be carried out to
evaluate the impacts of the development, along with access through Coolbawn Lane to be
closed off permanently. This submission also further raised concerns regarding the type of
cramped town housing proposed, the increase of vehicular and pedestrian traffic creating
an increased hazard, the lack of room for paving in relation to Coolbawn Lane, and the lack
of consideration for the Castleconnell LAP.
4.5 The issues highlighted by the An Bord Pleanála Inspector:
Upon the granting of permission to this proposed development, The South
Castleconnell Residents Group took the decision to An Bord Pleanala for appeal. Within
this, the inspectorate considered the most salient points of the submission to be the
Principle of Development, the Impact on Protected Structures and Trees, the Design of the
Scheme, and Vehicular and Pedestrian Access.
The Inspectorate gave her opinion regarding each of these points upon taking both the
objector and developer’s reasoning into account. In terms of the Principle of Development,
the Inspectorate deemed the site as zoned appropriately for residential purposes and the
phasing of the development in line with those polices of the LAP’s phasing plan for
development in the village. She noted that the site was not located within a special area of
control, and was in-fact well removed from those within the village, along with questioning
the zoning of the land in terms of impact on the village’s historic and rural nature lies with
the Local Authority and the 2001 LAP.
The protected structure, Rock Lodge, was unoccupied at the time of proposal, and has
been until its recent purchase (c.2015-2016). The views of the house are restricted from the

25. 25
North due to tree cover, with the 2001 LAP protecting this view, which the inspectorate
deemed as “somewhat at odds with the residential zoning given to the lands”. She noted
that the Phase 1 permission will impact the site negatively, but the addition of this second
phase would not have any more of an impact to the land and its surroundings.
While some trees will be lost, it was distinguished that a number of them were to be
retained and protected, particularly during the construction period.
The inspectorate indicated that the density of the development was in line with the
Planning Authority’s assumed average, and was appropriate for the site which is close to
the village, with densities matching what exists in the village being deemed unsustainable.
The design and types of housing were not thought to be at odds with the setting or to
create adverse loss of privacy or overshadowing, however the alteration of the design to
create passive surveillance on the pedestrian route was noted as important to create safety
on the route.
The vehicular access onto the site at Belmont Road had already been given permission
for Phase 1, with the financial contributions to upgrade the road, the use of this access was
not deemed to be adversely negative. The pedestrian access route which was deemed too
dangerous by objectors due to its size and lack of footpath was considered to be of benefit
to the village and health of the locals who would be encouraged to travel by foot over car.
The shared surface opportunities of the lane would also provide natural traffic calming, thus
becoming safer for pedestrians.
Overall, the An Bord Pleanala inspectorate considered the proposed development
acceptable in principle, as it was envisaged that the amenities which were enjoyed by the
existing residential properties would not be adversely affected, which resulted in the grant
of permission subject to conditions.

26. 26
4.6- Noteworthy Conditions:
The Castlerock Estate was given planning permission by An Bord Pleanala subject to
17 conditions. While this could be thought to be positive for both the developer, who was
given permission to build an estate, which had the potential to benefit both the local village
and the economy, and the objectors who, despite losing their appeal, had their voices
heard and taken note of, some of the conditions attached to the permission are worth
mentioning.
The third condition stated that
Appropriate childcare facilities, including adequate drop-off facilities and open space, in
accordance with the Planning Guidelines on Childcare Facilities issued by the Department
of the Environment and Local Government in June 2001, shall be provided and shall be
subject to a separate application for permission to the planning authority.
This condition was very important in terms of the benefits that it would bring to the local
area and the families living within the estate once it is developed. The Planning Guidelines
on Childcare Facilities states that in “new housing areas, planning authorities should
require the provision of at least one childcare facility for new housing areas”, with at least
one facility with a minimum of 20 spaces per 75 dwellings (2001, Appendix 2, pg.14).m
However, the attachment of a condition which specifies that the applicant must
apply for another development is not one which is enforceable by the Planning Authority, as
it is not possible for an authority to force a developer to apply for a new development. It is
also not a precise condition given that there is no time limit stated in which the developer
has to satisfy it. Given that this condition was invalid, a loophole meant that it was never,
and unlikely to be ever, developed. In order for this ‘amenity of the area’, according to the
Board’s reason for attaching the condition, to be a valid condition, it could have been
conditioned to be built prior to the commencement of the entire development, or stated
instead that plans, both in terms of physical plans and timescales to develop the crèche,
must be submitted to the Authority prior to commencement of the development.
Despite a condition such as the one aforementioned being included conditions
which have benefitted and shown that the objectors and existing residents surrounding the

27. 27
proposed development had valid points that were listened to, have also been included. This
can be seen particularly with condition 11, which states that
Full details of the barrier to be erected at either end of the pedestrian path so as to prevent
its use by all motorised vehicles shall be submitted to the planning authority for agreement
prior to commencement of development.
This ensured that the developer stopped the possibility of any vehicles using Coolbawn
Lane to gain access to or from the development, which satisfied an important concern of
the objectors. Other issues which concerned objectors such as recreational space, design,
roads, and trees were all included to some extent on the conditions attached to the grant of
permission.

28. 28
Chapter 5- Interview Analysis:
This section will look, in depth, at the answers objectors gave in their interviews
relating to the development in question, the Castlerock Estate in Castleconnell, Co.
Limerick. This analysis is based around a selection of points and thoughts which arose
during the interview stage (see Appendix 1). The points of analysis, which are
discussed below, were those which were felt to be the more salient points and issues
raised both from the objection letters which were submitted to Limerick County Council
and An Bord Pleanála at the time of the development proposal, and those raised by
objectors in the interviews.
The interviews conducted raised a number of interesting points regarding why
people objected to the development originally, how they feel about the development
now, whether there is anything that specifically bothers them in relation to this
development and their original objection points, whether or not they would object again
knowing how the development turned out, and what they would change about the estate
if given the chance to do so. With this, this analysis section will also seek to examine
certain objector’s feelings towards public participation in the planning system and their
experiences with it, particularly in relation to this development. Despite not being asked
any specific questions relating to public participation in the planning system during the
interviews, some of the objectors offered strong opinions which were felt to be too
important to this research to be ignored.
Table 5.1 depicts those objection points that were raised by the local objectors at
the time of the development proposal and submitted to Limerick County Council. With
this, each point is marked as to whether the County Council, and subsequently An Bord
Pleanála, picked up on and dealt with it in relation to the Planning and Inspector’s
Reports and the conditions attached to both permissions to grant the development.

29. 29
Objector’s Points Council An Bord Pleanala
------- Planning Report Conditions Inspector’s Report Conditions
Validity of
Planning
Application
N X N X N X N X
The Site N X N X Y O N X
Protected
Structure
N X N X Y O N X
Trees N X Y O Y O Y O
Access Y O N X Y O Y O
Design and Layout
of Proposed Estate
Y O N X Y O Y O
Existing Roads N X N O Y O Y O
Recreational Area/
Green Space
Y X-Wetland,
& O- more green
space
Y O Y O Y O
At the beginning of each interview, those participating were asked two questions,
the first confirming that they did, in fact, object to the development, while the second
asked if the interviewee was an owner/occupier. This second question was asked in
order to attempt to gain insight into the investment, of those who objected, into the area.
It was felt that asking this question was important as those who have bought or built
their own homes would be likely to be more invested in staying in the area than those
who have rented their homes. With this it was felt that those who are owner/occupiers
are more likely to object to developments which will impact them, than those who may
only be holding a temporary residency in a rented home.
Table 5.1- Objectors points picked up on by the Planning Authority and An Bord Pleanala
Y- Addressed, N- Not Addressed, O- Dealt With, X- Not Dealt With

30. 30
From the results of asking this question it is clear that a significant proportion of
those who had objected were owner/occupiers. There was only one objector, Objector
4, whose interview was conducted via postal mail, who answered no to this question.
However, as noted in Appendix 2, it is unclear whether or not the objector stated no to
being an owner/occupier or no to their comfort in answering the question. If the latter is
the case then the total number of owner/occupier objectors who were interviewed is
100%.
5.1- Why did people object to the proposed development and how do they feel now?
Within the interview proportion of this research it became apparent that, while
each person recognised that they did object to the development, it was interesting to
see that a proportion (22%) did not initially recall objecting. Within this, a number of
objectors gave reasons which were not on the objection letter such as Objector 1’s
statement that their friendship with one of the “main objectors ... who went around
canvassing for objectors” was likely the initial reason for their objection to the
89%
11%
Are you an Owner/Occupier?
Yes
No/Unanswered
Figure 5.1- Are you an Owner/Occupier?

31. 31
development; or to provide their neighbours, who had stronger reasons for objecting,
with support, which played a role in the influence of objections from Objector’s 2 and 9.
With this Objector 6 also stated an additional reason for their objection being their role
with the Castleconnell Development Forum, which “sought to safeguard development in
the area”.
It could be determined from this that many of those who objected to the
development, while having their own reasons, may have been influenced by, or had
stronger reasons to do so in the interest and for the well being of, their neighbours and
friends.
In terms of reasons for objecting in relation to the points raised in the objection
letters, it is interesting to note the apparency of mutual concern among neighbours and
friends, as aforementioned. It would appear that the objectors to this development felt
that everybody submitting the same objection letter would result in a stronger outcome
than that of individually objecting specifying their own specific points of objection. This
has been evident, more so than as aforementioned in the previous paragraph, in the
levels of responses to each individual point of importance to object to, where, for
example, some objectors felt the most important point was access to the development,
while the integrity of the protected structure, Rock Lodge, on the site was not something
of importance at all.
In terms of the most important points of the objection letters, the various access
points to and from the site appears to have been the biggest reason for people objecting
to the development, where 100% of people interviewed felt that at least one of the
possible access points would impact their lives in a negative way, to warrant the
development plans to, at least be altered.

32. 32
While not every objector had issues with the same access points, it was clear
that the Coolbawn Lane pedestrian access point was the most contested. In terms of
this Coolbawn Lane access point, six of the nine objectors interviewed felt that there
would be major issues with pedestrian access going through here. The reasons for
objecting to this point of access were overall quite similar amongst the objectors. The
objection letter stated that Coolbawn Lane is a cul-de-sac which already serves 12
houses with cars, therefore it “cannot be used as a pedestrian access” as it is very
narrow with multiple pinch points preventing it from being widened. With this, there is
also a dangerous junction where the Lane meets with Castleconnell’s main street, which
combined with the nature of the Lane, as mentioned, would make it “extremely
dangerous for any large number of pedestrians to use this (as) a thoroughfare for either
cycling or walking as there are no footpaths and they are forced to walk in the middle of
the road” as footpaths are not a viable option given the pinch points.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Coolbawn Lane
Access
Belmont Road
Access
Other Access (i.e.
Stradbally North)
None
Reasons for Objection: Access
Of Total No. Objectors
No. Of Objectors
Fig. 5.2- Reasons for objecting in terms of Access.

33. 33
The issue with the Coolbawn Lane access, as mentioned in the objection letter,
matches up with those reasons given by the objectors who were interviewed. Each
objector, 1,2,3,7,8,and 9, took issue with the pedestrian access at Coolbawn Lane
mentioning these points as cause for concern relating to the future of the lane and the
proposed development. These objectors, such as Objector 3, stated these issues with
statements like “the lane would become the natural way for people from the estate to
get to the village centre, which would bring a sizable number of people onto a narrow
lane which could not accommodate footpaths and had the potential to change a quiet
cul-de-sac into a much busier thoroughfare”. With this, the objectors expressed their
fears that over time despite being a pedestrian access point, that vehicles could begin
to use it as another way to and from the estate. This appeared to be a great cause for
concern as four of the six who took issue with the Coolbawn Lane access also
mentioned this fear. Objector 2 stated that “the addition of more vehicles on a road
which “is only barely the width of a car and a quarter” would have made the road
“extremely dangerous”.”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Coolbawn Lane
Access
Belmont Road
Access
Other Access (i.e.
Stradbally North)
No Issue
Still an Issue?: Access
Of Total No. Objectors
No. Of Objectors
Fig. 5.3- Is Access still an issue for the Objectors?

34. 34
In terms of their feelings today, despite their concerns relating to the lane’s
access, many of the objectors have said that while issues still remain, “there has been
more life on the road and it has been friendly since” the estate was built (Objector 9).
Others, such as Objector 2, stated that they “never thought it would be a negative
development” unless car access was ever given to the estate via Coolbawn Lane,
adding that “I like seeing people on the road and it has actually worked out even better
than I could have anticipated”.
However, issues do still remain regarding this access point, as a number of these
objectors, such as 3,7,8 and 9, feel that pedestrians on the lane have created hazards
as people treating the lane expressly as a pedestrian path which “will eventually cause
an accident” (Objector 8). Objector 3 also expressed fear of the danger that still exists,
particularly with people pulling out of their driveways, or with the amount of people that
now use the lane, which is the likely cause of a number of break-ins, as there is no
longer a cul-de-sac to stop a thief escaping. While objectors, overall, are content with
the pedestrian access, Objector 7 stated that it has impacted on their privacy, and there
is more noise surrounding their home now as children tend to play on the lane, which is
also a hazard. Objector 9 also added that while the lane is friendly now, in a few more
years, particularly as children grow up, antisocial behaviour could become a factor on
the Lane.
In terms of the Belmont Access, to which four people objected to, the main
objection letter raised points that “Belmont Road is a country road, and not designed to
take traffic generated by over 300 homes”, and with this “the substantial number of cars
will be unable to get out onto the N7 in the morning and likewise in the evening”.
Moreover, this road was deemed to not be suitable for pedestrians given there is no
footpath on the road. Those objectors who had concern for access onto Belmont Road
stated these feelings in the interviews. Objectors 7 and 9 stated that “Belmont Road
would not be able to handle the levels of pedestrian and car traffic it would need to take,
given that there were no footpaths on it and points of the road were not wide enough for
two cars to pass” (Objector 7). While Objector 8 added that this access was not
sustainable as to get to the village, cars have to drive in a loop around. This objector

35. 35
went so far as to say that this access point should have been through the Stradbally
North estate, which is much closer to the village centre, despite residents from this
estate also objecting in relation to that possibility.
This access point was given permission in the first phase of the development
which was applied for in 2001 (ref. 01/2275) and as a result, it could not be changed
despite the objections for the phase 2 proposal to which these objections were made.
Regardless of this, objectors still feel that Belmont Road should have a footpath to
increase safety levels for pedestrians, according to Objector 9 who stated that this was
something they would change if they could. Objector 1 also stated that the road
conditions coming in and out of the estate on Belmont Road were poor and they “would
have expected the council to improve them”. These points of issue are ones which lie
with Limerick County Council as the final grant of permission for the development
conditioned the developer to pay a bond and an additional sum of money to the
authority in order to contribute to expenditure and maintenance relating to the
development.
Other than these points, there does not seem to be much in the way of issues
with the Belmont Road access which was given despite objections. However, it is
important to note that despite the lack of protest for this access point today, the
unforeseen circumstances of an unfinished development and the construction of the M7
motorway in 2009-2010 have likely added to the positive attitude towards this previous
point of objection. Had the development been finished, coupled with the lack of close
access to the M7, the fears which were objected to would likely have come true for
these objectors.
The possibility of access through the Stradbally North housing estate also led to
objections on this development. Objector’s 4, 5 and 6 all raised fears that this proposed
development could create a “thoroughfare” of pedestrians and possibly cars, through
their estate (Objector 5). Despite this access point relating to the Phase 1 part of the
development, this fear was very real for these objectors. However, since the
development was never finished and the estate did not expand to almost join Stradbally
North, none of these objectors have any remaining issues with estate access today.

36. 36
However, had the estate been finished, the relief expressed by Objector 4 may have
resulted in a much different account.
The Layout and design of the development was objected to due to the three
storey terraced housing which would create overlooking onto some of the existing
residents of the area. With this, there was further criticism of the estate’s design due to
this type of housing being “totally unsuitable and out of character”, according to the
main objection letter.
While more of the objectors felt that these points of layout and design, and
density of the development, were less important than other issues, some still feared
their impacts on the overall area. Objectors living closer to Coolbawn Lane are noted to
have more of a concern relating to these points than those who live elsewhere. Both of
these points also appeared to overlap with Objectors’ 3, 7 and 8 taking issue with both,
along with Objector 6 who worried about the layout and design of the estate. With this, it
is also important to note that the majority of those who did take an issue to these points
live on Coolbawn Lane, with only one from Stradbally North.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Layout/Design Density
Reasons for Objection: Layout/Design & Density
Felt it was an issue to be
addressed
Did not feel it was an issue to be
addressed
Fig. 5.4- Reasons for Objection in relation to Layout/Design and Density.

37. 37
Objector 3 stated that they felt it important to object as these three storey
terraced houses were planned to be built right up to the boundary of their garden. This
created a, very valid, fear of many houses overlooking them. With this they also
expressed fears that the high density of the estate would take from the area’s amenities
rather than adding to them. Objector 7 held fears regarding the density of the proposed
development and the future of the village as a whole, stating that the Castleconnell LAP
had zoned land for residential development over a 20 year period, however, this phase,
coupled with phase 1, would fill almost 50% of this within the first few years of the plan,
which they felt to be “too many houses, too quickly”. This objector was also vocal
regarding the planned design and layout “which is out of keeping with the historic
village”. Objector 6 also added their reservations regarding the design and layout of the
estate due to the possible access that could be created through Stradbally North.
It is evident that, today, there is not as much of an issue remaining surrounding
these points and the objector’s feelings. While most no longer have an issue with the
layout and design of the development, some feelings have remained such as those of
Objector 8’s with terraced housing not fitting in well with the environment. Adding to this,
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Layout/Design Density
Still an Issue?: Layout/Design & Density
Still an Issue
No Longer an Issue
Fig. 5.5- Are Layout/Design and Density still an issue today?

38. 38
it is interesting to see those such as Objector 2, who originally took no issue with the
layout and design of the development, state that they feel these houses seemed to be a
little cramped in comparison to the rest of the estate. Many of the objectors also stated
that in terms of their feelings towards the layout and design, particularly in relation to the
housing, that there is a good mix of housing types within the estate “where everybody
can find something” (Objector 1).
Density also remains an issue for some today, although still less than during the
time of the objections. However, while some Objectors such as 2, 3, 4 and 5 are still not
concerned about density of the estate today, it is important to note that these also
stated that they are glad that the development was never completed. Objector 2 feels
that if it was to ever be completed, it would be too big, “which would be a pity”, while
Objector 3 feels that the density remains too high for the rural setting they are in.
Objectors such as 4 and 5, who objected over access to Stradbally North, would likely
also take issue with the density of the overall development if it is ever finished as this
could lead to a possibility of reopening this access route.
56%
44%
Reasons for Objection: Recreational Green Open
Space
Yes No
Fig. 5.6- Reason for Objections relating to Recreational Green Space Provisions

39. 39
In terms of recreational green space within the development, five of nine
objectors felt there was an issue with what was being provided. These issues ranged
from the amount being provided for in relation to the numbers of houses being provided
(Objector 4), to the lack of suitable space being set out for the proposed recreational
green space, given what was proposed is wetland (Objector 9), and the lack of sufficient
green space and sports facilities would take from the local amenities rather than adding
to them (Objector 3 and 6).
While the recreational green space that was planned for in the north east of the
development, and conditioned by An Bord Pleanála for, was never provided, a different,
smaller piece was provided. With this, today, 56% of the objectors do not have an issue
with what was provided, including some of those who did originally have an issue, such
as Objectors 8 and 9.
However, interestingly, Objector 7 has realised that this point has made an
impact on their feelings towards the development as time has passed. They stated in
the interview that children lack sufficient play areas, and as a result they play on the
44%
56%
Still an Issue?: Recreational Green Open Space
Yes No
Fig. 5.7- Is the provision of the Recreational Green Open Space still an issue?

40. 40
streets and on Coolbawn Lane. Despite this original recreational green space being
prone to flooding, as noted by Objector 4 and 9, it is not a regular occurrence, leaving
little in the way for a valid reason for the developer not providing it within the first
growing season after development begins, as conditioned.
Objector 3, also importantly noted, that they felt without the space that was
intended to be provided there would be little for the children to do as they grow older.
This is particularly because no sports facilities, or even sports opportunity facilities, such
as what the large recreational green space would have provided, were provided.
The treatment of Rock Lodge, a protected structure, and its surrounding
curtilage, was something mentioned on the main objection letter as being important to
have been concerned about and objected to. This objection letter stated that due to the
protected nature of the building and its curtilage, its integrity should be protected from
the surrounding houses to be built. This letter also raised the point that the view north of
the Lodge was protected, and would be destroyed by houses. With this point, it was
noted in the Inspectors Report that the integrity of the Lodge had already been impacted
on due to the zoning of the land for residential development and the previously granted
planning permission for the first phase of the development (ref.01/2775).
33%
67%
Reasons for Objection: Treatment of Rock Lodge
& its Curtilage
Yes No
Fig. 5.8- Reasons for objecting relating to the treatment of Rock Lodge

41. 41
While the integrity of Rock Lodge was objected to on the main objection letter,
only 33% (three of nine) of objectors stated that they had felt it was something that was
concerning in terms of the proposal for development surrounding it. Objector 1 raised a
point that despite being unsure of its importance to the area, the fact that the building
was protected meant that the grounds surrounding it should be reserved, to an extent,
“in keeping with the building”. Objector 3 felt that there were better uses for the land that
would not impact the building, particularly as the local village had very little in terms of
amenity land at the time.
Only one objector (Objector 8), of nine, felt that this building should have had its
historic character protected from being destroyed by surrounding development. In fact
many of the objectors interviewed even stated that they did not feel the protection of the
building’s integrity was something to be concerned about at all, with some not even
knowing of its existence on the land.
Interestingly, now that the development has been completed, more people have
expressed their concerns over the treatment of Rock Lodge than had originally. The
44%
56%
Still an Issue?: Treatment of Rock Lodge & its
Curtilage
Yes No
Fig. 5.9- Is the treatment of Rock Lodge still an issue?

42. 42
majority of the feelings regarding the building from then to now have remained the
same. These objectors, 1, 3 and 8, feel that the way the building was treated was
inappropriate, being lost on a hill in the middle of a very modern development with
houses located too close and a large inappropriate fence being erected surrounding it.
With this, Objector 2, who had stated that while they did not feel that the building had
any architectural merit to it to warrant protection, also stated that “what they did to Rock
Lodge was a disaster”. This objector stated that there was no longer enough land
around the building to give it balance and that it now sticks out on a hill above the rest of
the estate, conveying that “it’s the kind of flaw in the design that really should never
have happened”, with “even a few hundred yards around the front of the house would
have made a huge difference”.
While the protection of integrity of Rock Lodge does not seem to overly impact
any of the objectors today, those who did express their feelings towards how the
building was treated raised valid points that they felt were important.
The treatment of the trees on the site was something that, it appears, many were
concerned about. The main objection letter’s comments on the trees within the site
related to certain trees which would contravene the LAP if lost to houses and the
inclusion of a tree survey, by the developer, which did not accurately show all of the
trees on the land. However, most of those who stated that they felt the trees should
have been protected better were not concerned about the contravention of the LAP or
the inaccurate tree survey, but were concerned over the welfare of the trees themselves
and how they looked on the land.

43. 43
As seen from Fig. 5.10, 67% of objectors stated that they were concerned about
the trees and how they would be treated in relation to the proposed development. The
consensus relating to people’s feelings on the outcome of the trees, if this development
was to go ahead, was the same- that trees, particularly those which are over a century
old and native to the country, should be protected and conserved. Some felt that the
landscape and amenity value of the land would be destroyed in the place of housing if
the development was to go ahead.
67%
33%
Reasons for Objection: Treatment of the Trees
on Site
Yes No
Fig. 5.10- Reasons for Objection in relation to trees on site

44. 44
In terms of people’s opinions relating to the trees today and how they were
treated during and after the development of the estate, it is evident that some people’s
feelings have changed. While the general consensus of objectors still do not have an
issue with the lack of protection of trees, some objectors still hold the feeling that more
trees should have been kept, particularly such as Objector 1 who believes that the
estate feels quite bare and new looking without the maintenance of the old trees.
However, despite the felling of many of the trees during the development, objectors
such as 2 stated that despite some of the native species being felled, they are happy
with what is in the estate and that at least some of them were well maintained.
In terms of amenity value of the site, the main objection letter stated that the site
and area in general were ones of “natural beauty” and “great charm” and that it is not
felt “that any regard has been given to the fact that this is an area of high natural
amenity with a sense of isolation close to the village of Castleconnell”.
33%
67%
Still an Issue?: Treatment of the Trees on Site
Yes No
Fig. 5.11- Is the treatment of the trees on site still an issue today?

45. 45
It is clear, however, from the interviews that the majority of objectors (78%), did
not feel that this site was one of high amenity value in need of protection. Many of those
who commented on the amenity value of the site stated that they never went onto the
land prior to the development proposal, as it was privately owned. However, those that
did feel there was amenity value to the land stated that they wished for the land to
become a local amenity site (Objector 6), with Objector 3 adding that the site also had a
value in terms of reminiscence when they used to take their children onto the land.
22%
78%
Reasons for Objection: Loss of a High Amenity
Site
Yes No
22%
78%
Still an Issue?: Loss of a High Amenity Site
Yes No
Fig. 5.12- Reasons for objection relating to the loss of a high amenity site
Fig. 5.13- Is the loss of a high amenity site still an issue today?

46. 46
Today not much has changed in terms of feelings towards the site being high
amenity and lost to development. Those who felt that the site had a high amenity value
still feel the same way, such as with Objector 6 who added that if they could they would
include the recreational green space that was never provided in order to provide an
amenity value to the site.
From this it is very likely that the reason for including the point in the objection
letter related to a possible fear that more points for objection had to be raised than
needed to help get their other, more important, points across.
5.2- How do the objectors feel about the development today, 13 years after it was given
planning permission?
In terms of objector’s feelings about the development today, there appears to be
an overall positive feeling towards the development, however, there are also still some
negative feelings surrounding the development as aforementioned in the previous
section. It is evident that in terms of aspects about the development that objectors
stated they do and don’t like, the positives far outweigh the negatives. Many of the
objectors stated that they felt the development had turned out to be a success with five
of the nine interviewed mentioning that the estate was aesthetically pleasing and had
nice people living there. Three mentioned that the development of the estate has also
brought about a new, popular, walking loop around the village where people can walk
along Coolbawn Lane, through the estate, onto Belmont Road and back into the village.
This was noted as something that was very positive and beneficial from the
development that was not foreseen. Objector 1 also added, with others such as
Objector’s 2 and 9, that the development of the estate has actually brought a new lease
of life and vitality to the village, with many children playing and filling up the local
primary schools.
However, with these positive aspects of the development also came some
negative ones. These mainly surrounded the remaining issues of pedestrian safety on
Coolbawn Lane, which still worries a number of local residents and objectors as they
believe an accident will occur some day, and the call for more appropriate recreational

47. 47
green space, which was never provided as planned despite being conditioned by An
Bord Pleanála, which is particularly important when children grow older and need more
available recreational space. With these types of negative aspects being the more
popular consensus, multiple objectors, such as 4 and 5 specifically, stated that they
were glad the development was interrupted by the recession, while other objectors,
such as 1, 3 and 8 feel that the development looks unfinished. Both of these statements
contradict each other when looking at the opinions as a whole. Some felt that the estate
is too large, or close to it, and are glad that the developer was not able to finish building,
while with this, some also felt that the way the estate looks, particularly at the entrance
is unsightly. These kinds of differences of opinions which have come from the same
root, despite being caused by an unforeseen circumstance rather than a mistake made,
show that it is impossible to please 100% of the people 100% of the time.
5.3- What would you change about the development if you could?
Multiple different aspects of the development were picked out and altered by the
objectors when asked what they would change if they could. These ranged from
ensuring better protection of Rock Lodge to creating more recreational space and
facilities for the children in the estate, rebuilding better housing or changing nothing at
all.
In terms of protecting Rock Lodge objectors such as 1 and 3 stated that they
would have ensured its better protection, with more space being afforded to it and “a
better merging of its curtilage and the new development could have created a better
outcome here” (Objector 1).
The most popular opinion surrounding alterations to this development dealt with
feelings of more recreational green space and facilities needing to be provided on the
site. Many of these objectors felt that they should have been provided at the start of the
development process and “contingent on the houses being built”, or at least have had
funds set aside for the planning authority to ensure they were carried out (Objector 3).
The large recreational green space and facilities such as a crèche, were both
conditioned to be provided with the development by An Bord Pleanála, and while it

48. 48
could be noted that the condition relating to the provision of a crèche (condition no.4)
was not an enforceable condition, the green space condition stated that this space was
to be provided according to a detailed scheme and timetable for implementation agreed
upon with the planning authority (condition no.15). These appear to still be very
important to the objectors and have raised questions as to why they were never
constructed.
Some objectors are still not entirely happy with the layout and design of the
estate and stated that they would redesign all the buildings (Objector 7) or just remove
some such as the terraced townhouse style buildings. However, most objectors feel that
the estate looks nice, is friendly and has a good mix of housing suitable for different
needs of residents.
Interestingly none said they would get rid of the estate altogether. This could lead
to thoughts that the objectors don’t have an issue with it being developed anymore and
would mainly only change minor things such as adding a footpath to Belmont Road,
ensuring that the facilities and recreational green space were implemented at the start
of the development so that they would happen, or adding extra pedestrian access
points.

49. 49
5.4- Given that the development has (mostly) been completed and knowing how it
turned out, would you still object again?
When asked if they would still object today, the majority of the objectors stated
that they would. Many of these stated their reasons for this surrounded the importance
of having their voices heard to ensure that the issues they had objected for were heard
and heeded by the planners and An Bord Pleanála. It was stated by Objector 2 that
objecting “was extremely important” to ensure that worries such as the possibility of the
vehicular access onto Coolbawn Lane never became a possibility. Objector 3 also
added that they would object again even if it made no difference to how the
development turned out “as people will always pursue their own selfish interests”, and
despite being happy with the development today, stated that “you never know that
before the thing begins”. Only two of the objectors (Objectors 6 and 9) stated that they
would not object today knowing how the development turned out as they are not
impacted by the development as it stands and have no issues with it.
It is evident that the majority of these objectors feel that the ability to object to a
development is very important, particularly as if they had not objected they could have
67%
22%
11%
Would You Still Object Today?
Yes
No
Unanswered
Fig. 5.14- Given that the development has (mostly) been completed and knowing how it
turned out, would you still object to it?

50. 50
had very different opinions regarding the outcome of the development as it stands
today.
5.5- Thoughts of the Objector on Public Participation in the Planning System.
While not expressly asked their opinions relating to public participation in the
planning system, it became clear that some objectors had a lot to say on the matter. It is
evident from the objector’s answers to aforementioned questions such as ‘would you
object again?’, to which most were ‘yes’, that the majority of these people feel that it is
important to be able to object and submit opinions on fears and worries that may arise
and go unnoticed by the planning authority making a decision. It could be derived from
those who stated they would object again and feel that it is an important process, that
the process of public participation within planning authority decision-making is one
which is valuable and effective, particularly as the public opinion must be given due
regard within the decision-making process.
Some objectors went further than hinting at their thoughts and feelings towards
public participation in the planning process, such as Objector 2 who described how it is
always good to look at a proposed development in order to raise points about possible,
valid, issues which could be sorted to help create a more positive outcome for all. Also
adding, “I think the business of being able to object is very important” but once a
developer tries to meet the objectors in the middle, it is a better outcome.
However, with the positive opinions always also come negative ones. Objector 7,
when discussing the need for community facilities in the development to be enforced on
at the start of development to ensure they are carried out, stated that they have “no
confidence in the planning” as public meetings were held with local councillors in the
past to ensure that these types of community facilities were put in place before any
more residential development was carried out. However, these meetings did not seem
to have worked, much to the disdain of this objector. It would appear that the levels of
public participation here were on the lower levels of tokenism on Arnstein’s Ladder of
Citizen Participation, where citizens have been heard but not necessarily heeded.

51. 51
Objector 9 appeared very vocal regarding their opinions of public participation in
the Irish planning system. Within this they made known their distrust of the planning
authority to inform them of what is going on. They stated that “public participation here,
is where they talk to you... they don’t listen”, adding that “planners don’t seem to listen
to the people”, they sit there and let you speak but in the objectors experience, they
don’t take notes and don’t seem to care about what the public have to say; “they have
their mind made up and they come across with that kind of an attitude”. In addition to
this, this objector stated that the way in which the planning authority have interacted
with the public prior to the proposal for the Castlerock Estate development in question,
formed one of the main reasons for their objection on this particular development.
From these opinions given on public participation in the planning process, it is
apparent that for the most part, objectors are happy with the levels of public
participation that occur in relation to specific developments. They feel that they can
object to and raise points that they feel are important and the planning authority is
legally obliged to have regard to their opinions. This is an essential tool for the public as
without this many issues could be created, surrounding development, which are never
resolved. As previously stated, there are also negative opinions surrounding public
participation. However, these opinions seem to revolve around levels of participation
outside of those laid out in the decision-making process. The issues that these objectors
seem to raise mainly surround the levels of public participation at public meeting levels,
where it is felt that public opinion is not listened to, where the participation lies within the
lower rungs of Arnstein’s degrees of tokenism instead of at a higher level between
placation and partnership, where public opinion is taken more seriously.

52. 52
Chapter 6- Discussion:
Within the analysis of the nine interviews conducted, multiple questions were
asked surrounding objector’s feelings to the development then and now, their thoughts
on objecting again today, and their opinions on public participation within the planning
and decision-making process.
Objectors were asked their opinion based on specific points of the main objection
letter, to investigate how they felt about each of these points then and how they feel
about them now. This was done in order to determine any change of opinions on points
and the reasons behind these. It became evident from the analysis that points such as
access, recreational green open space, and the treatment of Rock Lodge, a protected
18th
Century building located on the development site, appeared to be the main reasons
for people objecting. These specific issues were also the ones which objectors continue
to have the most issue with today. While the general consensus surrounded the
development being stated as a nice estate and a success, concerns relating to points
such as pedestrian safety from the Coolbawn Lane access point, or the lack of sufficient
green recreational space suitable for children to play on, particularly as they grow older,
have not been entirely alleviated.
Points such as the high amenity value of the site, the design/layout and density
of the development, and the treatment of the trees on the site, some of which were a
cause for concern for many of the objectors at the time of objection, appear to have
been alleviated over time. Objectors seem to be happy, overall, regarding how these
points have been dealt with, or just happened to turn out, and no longer feel their
concerns remain.
Questions relating to how the objectors feel about the development now, if they
would object again, and what they would change about the estate if they could were
also asked. The general consensus from their feelings towards the development was
very positive with the estate deemed to be nice looking and much vitality having been
brought to the village, particularly with the presence many children. This shows that
many of the concerns and fears that the objectors had have been replaced by the

53. 53
feeling that the development turned out to be a success in the end. With saying this
however, it is also important to note that a large proportion of objectors stated they
would object again, despite knowing how the development would turn out. Many felt that
the ability to object to development is very important to ensure the public voice is heard,
particularly given that it is impossible to fully know how the development will turn out
before construction begins. While the overall opinion on the development was positive,
many also gave input into things they would change. Many of these related to points of
objection where concern had not been fully alleviated, such as the provision of
recreational green open space and facilities. As stated in the analysis chapter, it was an
interesting discovery that despite objecting to the development of the estate, none of the
objectors said they would get rid of the development entirely, but only change those
aspects that seem to bother them the most.
The final point of analysis covered opinions surrounding public participation in the
planning system. It was discovered within this that objectors appear to consider that the
process of being able to object to a development and know that their opinions will have
to be given regard to is a vital part of the decision-making process and the future of
development in the local area. However, points were also raised regarding the issues of
the level at which public participation meetings are held at. Objectors made known their
aggrievance regarding these meetings being held to low levels of tokenism which
impacted the way this particular development turned out, such as Objector 7’s point
relating to attending meetings where developments should not be allowed until the
relevant facilities were implemented first.

54. 54
Objector’s
Points
Could have been corrected in
Planning Process
Inevitable in how it turned out
today
The Site:
amenity value
No- Land was already zoned in
the LAP- so for this particular
development application, issues
with amenity of site could not
have been ‘corrected’.
Yes- Land was zoned for housing
and the process of making the
estate to suit the rural character
of the area would not have been
economically sustainable.
Protected
Structure
Yes- More space could have
been afforded to curtilage of Rock
Lodge.
Yes- Due to LAP land zoning, but
No- as the council could have
ensured more space was given to
Rock Lodge’s surroundings.
Trees No- The council did their best on
protecting some of trees, as due
to land being zoned it would be
impossible to save them all.
Yes- With the LAP allowing for
residential development, it was
inevitable that many trees would
be lost to development.
Design and
Layout of
Proposed
Estate
Yes- In terms of the layout of the
houses, which the council did
ensure was well done.
Yes- In terms of type & design of
houses as it was not
economically sustainable to
ensure more rural type houses
with more space were provided.
Access/Existing
Roads
Yes- The council did their best
with Coolbawn Lane but they
could have added lights and
footpath on Belmont Road for
pedestrian safety.
Yes- To the amount of cars on
Belmont Road as the 1st
phase
was already given permission,
which set a precedent for Phase
2.
Recreational
Area/ Green
Space
Yes- A condition for a
construction timetable for the
large recreational green space
was to be agreed with council;
however, this never came to
fruitition.
No- The council could have
ensured it was provided as
planned.
Of those issues raised by the objectors and how they are perceived to have
turned out today, it could be noted that it was inevitable in how some turned out, while
others could have been corrected by the planning process. In terms of issues raised
such as access, while the treatment of Coolbawn Lane, particularly in ensuring that it
was only kept as a pedestrian access, was deemed a success, the treatment of
Belmont Road could have been improved upon. The lack of a footpath, or even street
lighting, on a road which is widely used by the community could be seen as a failure on
Table 6.1- Issues which could have either been corrected by the planning process, or were
inevitable in their outcomes.

55. 55
the part of council and the planning process. Similar could be said for issues such as
the recreational green space which was to be provided. This space was conditioned to
be included as per a strict timetable agreed with the county council; however, it appears
to never have been enforced upon and could be seen as another failure of the council
and the planning process.
This is something which could be done in the future in order to aid local planning
authorities determine what could have been done differently and what was inevitable;
enabling them to correct, and learn from, mistakes for the future.
Overall, it is clear the development and the overall level of public participation
relating to the Castlerock Estate has been a success in the eyes of the objectors,
despite the few comments of things that could be fixed or improved upon in the future.

56. 56
Chapter 7- Conclusions:
The point of this research was two-fold. The first surrounded the investigation of
the planning process and its interaction with the public. The purpose of this was to
explore the reasons we include public participation in our planning system, at what
levels we partake in this process and its effectiveness at these levels, particularly in
relation to the case study of the Castlerock Estate in Castleconnell, Co. Limerick. The
second part of this research was aimed at investigating, in a retrospective manner, the
feelings of objectors to a contested development a number of years after it has been
given planning permission and been built. This was done to study the opinions and
feelings of those members of the public who objected to the development in order to
determine how, or if, they may, or may not, have changed over time.
In terms of the interaction between the planning process and the public, it can be
concluded that, for the most part, objectors (the public) appear to be happy with how the
system works. They have the ability, under the legislation, to make a submission on an
application which has to be given due regard by the planning authority making the
decision. With this, as happened in this particular case, the public are also afforded the
opportunity to take their objections further, to an An Bord Pleanála appeal, if they are
unhappy with the original decision made. However, it is also evident, in terms of public
participation on a public meeting scale outside of specific development, that the degree
of tokenism which often occurs in these meetings is not appreciated by the public.
These degrees of tokenism seem to make the public feel unimportant and as if their
time has been wasted, as they do not feel listened to, which can result in resentment
towards the planning authority in the future, as has happened in this development
between Objectors 7 and 9.
Many objectors feel that the development has been a success, with much vitality
being brought to the local area from the many young families who live there now.
However, it is clear that fears, such as the dangers surrounding pedestrian access on
Coolbawn Lane where some have stated that pedestrians treat the lane as if it is fully
pedestrianised which is an accident waiting to happen, or the treatment of Rock Lodge
turning out to be a disaster as not enough space was afforded to its surroundings, still