AN BORD PLEANÁLA has blocked planning permission for businessman and property developer Paddy McKillen Jnr’s proposed €40 million holiday resort in Co Wicklow.

McKillen’s company Creatively Pacific Limited had lodged plans for the boutique holiday resort and surf school for cliff top lands overlooking Magheramore Beach in 2023.

Documents lodged with McKillen Jnr’s original Oakmount planning application in 2023 stated that once the project is operational, it will employ 160 jobs and that is to follow 200 construction workers being employed during the 18 month long construction phase.

Wicklow County Council refused planning permission after a ‘wave’ of opposition against the plan with over 90 parties lodging objections. Permission was refused by the council on seven separate grounds. 

The company then lodged an appeal, which has now also been refused by the council.

In plans lodged in the appeal, the company described the proposed development as consisting of a two storey over lower ground level building containing a gym, sauna, cinema and outdoor pool reception, bar and restaurant and outdoor terrace at ground floor.

It would also involve the construction of a surf school building and 48 “high-quality accommodation pods” on the site. 

In an inspection report carried out by Louise Treacy, seven separate reasons were highlighted as the reason for refusal. 

The report stated that the planning application did not provide sufficient evidence that the proposed development “would not adversely affect the integrity of the Magherabeg Dunes SAC in view of the site’s conservation objectives and qualifying interests”.

It said that various elements of the development, including that its operations would directly result in a “significant” increase in visitors to the area, would likely have an “anthropological” impact.

It also highlighted that the application did not demonstrate that an adequate wastewater treatment system could be provided to service the proposed development, proposing a risk of groundwater contamination.

The report cited various objectives of the council’s development plan, and said that the development would “set an undesirable precedent for similar type development in this sensitive landscape, would appear visually out of character with the coast and would interfere with the environmental quality and amenities of Coastal Cell 8 and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”