Fast-food trader objects to plans for a new drive-thru outlet in Limerick
A FAST-FOOD trader has objected - through his holding company - to plans to build a drive-thru restaurant less than 500 metres from his own outlet in Limerick.
Fast-food outlet owner John Lyons, has appealed against proposals to build a drive-thru half a kilometre from his branch of Hungry Lyons near University Hospital Limerick in Dooradoyle.
Maxol is awaiting a decision from council over whether it can extend its service station at St Nessan’s Road to provide for a drive-thru food outlet.
A spokesperson for the service station firm said it’s “too early in the process” to confirm which company will run the drive-thru.
Agents for Watchford Ltd, for which Mr Lyons is a director along with his wife, have put together a detailed document opposing the development.
“Take-away restaurants and drive-thru facilities operate late at night and the impact of same on residents due to noise and possible anti-social behaviour is not acceptable,” the agents wrote in the objection to council.
“The introduction of a take-away and drive-thru will be detrimental to the amenity of the existing residents and will create a nuisance.”
They also argued the extension to the service station, the drive-thru element and the additional seating this will bring does not comply with the Limerick development plan.
“The aim of the development plan is to promote and support Limerick city,” they stated.
In simple terms, the development plan is a document which governs what can be built in Limerick and where, and forms the basis of what planning applications are approved in areas.
The agents for Watchford also argued the Crescent Shopping Centre lies in close proximity to the Maxol service station and highlighted a number of food outlets in that facility.
Council planners were due to make a decision on the proposals by this Wednesday.
But it’s understood a decision could be delayed.
In a letter to agents for Maxol, a council planner said there are “serious concerns” a drive-thru, if permitted, could lead to a “negative impact on the amenity” of neighbouring developments.
They also noted an “excessive concentration” of food outlets in the vicinity.
In response, agents acting for Maxol noted council did not define what “negative impacts” these are.
They also disputed the claims made over food providers.