Redesigned access road to Galway business park rejected by planning board

— Plan had included one metre cycle lanes when national rules call for 1.75 metres

— An Bord Pleanála highlights great difference between design and guidelines.

A redesign of an access road for Galway’s Parkmore business park was rejected because the design would “result in an unacceptable level of traffic hazard for road users”, in particular pedestrians and cyclists, planning body An Bord Pleanála has ruled.

The national planning authorty said that the difference between the design submitted by the IDA and the appropriate approach laid out in the Manual for Urban Roads and Streets was so great that it was not able to approve the design and use planning conditions to improve the design.

As we reported in May, the design of the project was appealed by the Galway Cycling Campaign and others. The cycling campaign said it did not have an issue with the principal of the project, but rather the sub-standard design used.

An Bord Pleanála stated: “Notwithstanding that the provision of a link road and junction is acceptable in principle at this location it is considered that proposed design conflicts to such an extent with the principles, approaches and standards set out in the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) (2013), which are the applicable standards, that it will result in an unacceptable level of traffic hazard for road users, and in particular vulnerable road users including pedestrians and cyclists and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

It added: “In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation to grant permission, the Board considered that the level of variance between the submitted design and the appropriate DMURS approach was so great as to be unamenable to acceptable resolution by condition and to warrant refusal.”


  1. I prefer meter, neighbor, flavor, and just about all the other American spellings. General English spelling is terrible to use and anything that helps clear up the gulf between spelling and pronunciation is a-ok in my opinion.

  2. This issue ties in to my comments regarding supervision and the proposed 10% for cycling and walking proposals. The Planning Appeals Board has determined that this scheme does not comply with the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS). However both the County Council and the Applicants furnished reports stating that it did comply with DMURs. If county council roads departments can claim to be following certain design guidance when they manifestly aren’t then what is the point making them spend 10% on “sustainable” transport?


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.