John O'Malley

Mount Juliet is an important part of the county’s tourism infrastructure and is a key local employer.  It is vital therefore that the future development of the estate is managed sensitively to protect the existing landscape, heritage and environmental character for future generations.  The estate’s new owners obtained permission for a new club house [already completed] and a hotel wing of 70 odd bedrooms and other new ancillary facilities.  They are currently seeking permission to increase the new hotel wing to 93 no. bedrooms.  I wish them every success with these proposals. 

However, I am concerned with the proposed changes to the Action Plan in Variation 1(a) especially the housing envisaged at objectives 9a and 12 on Figure 7.3.  If confirmed, these objectives would introduce 22 no. extra houses between Walton’s Gate and the clubhouse and would permanently alter the character of this part of the estate. 

 

Whereas the current Objective 12 relates to nine houses at the Kennels site, this area was chosen because it is well screened and can accommodate limited housing with no adverse visual impact.  The same cannot be said of Objective 12 as now proposed.  This area is centrally located within Mount Juliet.  A scheme of 16 no. houses [type not specified] next to the south Paddocks would significantly detract from the existing open character and amenity of this area.  While it is of less significance, traditionally, this area was used for the tented village during major golf tournaments and as an overflow car park at Christmas time so its development for houses is potentially significant in terms of the estate’s ability to host future sporting or cultural events. 

 

I fail to see how six houses to replace the maintenance yard contribute to the estate’s tourism, leisure and recreational functions as claimed at Objective 9a.  The maintenance area is used, inter alia, for the storage of materials such as sand for the golf course, and is ideally located next to the entrance gate and is remote from the tourist and residential accommodation on the estate.  If Objective 9a is confirmed, a new location would be required for the maintenance yard [Objective 9] yet, oddly, no new maintenance area is indicated on the Plan. 

 

In conclusion, a key feature of Mount Juliet is that the development to date managed to strike the right balance between maintaining the rural character of the estate and allowing a certain quantum of development.  While there may be some limited capacity to accommodate a few new sites for individual houses around the property, what’s envisaged at Objectives 12 and 9a is excessive and neither protects nor enhances amenity within the estate as provided for in the Action Plan. I urge the planning authority therefore to reject this Variation.