An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL03.228234

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development: Application for house at Leamaneh North, , Co. Clare.

Planning Application

Planning Authority: Clare County Council

Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: D07/2910

Applicant: Margaret Healy

Type of Application: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Refuse Permission

Planning Appeal

Appellant(s): Margaret Healy

Type of Appeal: First Party

Observers: None

Date of Site Inspection: 27 th June 2008

Inspector: Kenneth Moloney

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 1 of 11

SITE DESCRIPTION

The subject site is situated approximately 4.75 km east of Kilfenora on the R476. The appeal site is situated to the north of the public road and the site is situated immediately to the east of an existing single storey house. The appeal site is situated approximately 350 metres west of Leamaneh Castle and there are two houses between the castle and the appeal site.

The size of the site is 0.245 ha (0.605 acres) and the shape of the site is approximately rectangular. The site is currently overgrown with vegetation and the front and rear boundary of the site consists of a natural stone wall. There is an existing power line that transverses the front of the site. There is a single storey derelict structure located to the front of the site and there is mature vegetation situated in the south east corner of the site.

The gradient of the site slopes upwards from the front of the site to the rear. On the day of the site inspection there was no evidence of drainage problems on the site. Although some fields located on the opposite side of the road contain marshy features.

Leamaneh Castle can be seen from the appeal site.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development is for a single storey detached dwelling, a detached garage and a sewage treatment system.

The proposed dwelling is a 4-bedroom house with floor plan consisting of living space and 1-bedroom at ground floor level and three bedrooms at attic floor level. The total floor area of the proposed house is 186 sq. metres and two bedrooms at attic floor level are ventilated by gable windows and bedroom no. 3 is ventilated solely by velux roof windows.

The front of the proposed house is approximately 13.75 metres in length and the ridge height is 6.75 metres above the ground level. The proposed finish consists of painted nap and dark grey slate roof slates. The porch area to the front and the two side extensions are finished in local limestone.

The detached single storey garage has a floor area of approximately 34 sq. metres.

PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION

The Planning Authority decided to refuse permission and the reasons for refusal are summarised as following;

1. The site is located in open countryside, in an area designated as a Vulnerable Landscape in the 2005 – 2011 Clare County Development Plan where it is the policy of the planning authority, as set out under Policy CDP 68 to permit, subject to site suitability, a single house for the permanent occupation and housing needs of local persons where it can be

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 2 of 11 demonstrated that they are built to a high quality of design and the sitting and layout do not result in significant adverse impacts on the character, integrity or uniformity of the landscape. The Council considers that the applicant does not comply with the policies as set out in Housing Outside Settlements Section of the Plan. Accordingly the proposed development would materially contravene the objectives of 2005 – 2011 Clare County Development Plan and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. It is the policy of the Planning Authority, as set out in CDP22 of the 2005- 2011 Clare County Development Plan, to prohibit development requiring direct access onto specified major routes except in certain exceptional circumstances. The proposed development would result in direct access onto such a route and would, therefore, materially contravene this policy and adversely effect the use of a major route by reason of traffic hazard.

3. It is considered that the proposed development would result in an unacceptable risk of pollution to groundwater.

4. The planning authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not interfere with the archaeological setting, would not injure or interfere with an historical monument, Leamaneh Castle, or the policies of the County Development Plan 2005 – 2011.

5. The site is located in an area designated as Visually Vulnerable and adjacent to a designated Scenic Route where it is the policy of the Planning Authority under CDP 46 of the Development Plan to only permit proposals for development in vulnerable landscapes, of the highest quality in terms of sitting and design and where the development will not adversely impact to a significant extent upon the character, integrity or uniformity of the landscape and where the view towards or from sites of archaeological interest is not significantly impinged upon. In addition, development seeking to locate onto designated Scenic Routes as per CPD 51 must demonstrate that no adverse obstruction or degradation of views towards and from neither visually vulnerable archaeological features; nor significant alterations to the appearance or character of these areas will occur as a result. By reason of location height and scale, the proposed development would be in conflict with these objectives and would be visually intrusive in the landscape.

Internal Reports: There are 2 internal reports on the file:

• Conservation Office: The proposal would seriously impact on local recorded monuments, both visually and archaeologically and would be unsympathetic to the setting of the area.

• Area Engineer: Concerns regarding the proposed access onto regional road and surface water runoff from the site.

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 3 of 11 Objections / Submissions : There are no objections to the proposed development, however there is a submission from An Taisce who have concerns regarding policy, design, water management and traffic safety.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Grealish Glynn & Associates, Architectural Consultants, lodged an appeal on behalf of the applicant Margaret Healy. The main grounds of appeal are summarised as relating to the following; -

• The appellant submits that they would comply with Policy H3 of the Local Area Plan. In this regard the appellant refers the Board to Paragraph 27 of Chapter 6 of the LAP. • The appellant claims that they have family connections with the local area and that their family members have been living in the area for more than 10 years. • The appellant refers to the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines which recognises the rights of returning emigrants who lived substantial parts of their lives in the rural area and now wish to return to this area. • It is stated that the applicant complies with CDP22 of the Development Plan. • The sightlines are good in both directions and this is recognised in the local authority planners report. • The dwelling is located in the immediate proximity of an existing group of dwellings which is a requirement of CDP22. • The appellant submits, in accordance with the EPA manual for single houses, the ground water protection is R 2 and this is acceptable. • Due to the sloping nature of site the treatment unit and he the soil polishing filter are situated to the front of the site and will have no visual impact on the site. • It is stated that a sand polishing filter can be installed to the waste water treatment system in place of the proposed soil polishing filter. • It is not possible for the proposed development to impact on the views of Leamaneh Castle to the east of the appeal site as there are houses to the west of the appeal site. • It is considered that the dwelling to the east (L.A. Ref. 04/449) of the appeal site is not assimilated to the landscape in terms of screening. • The appellant acknowledges the importance of Leamaneh Castle as a cultural tourist attraction. • The appellant states that if the Board have concerns regarding the impact of the proposed development on archaeological features before any grant of permission the applicant is willing to carry out testing. • There are two existing dwellings and a large existing farm building to the east of the appeal site. • The appellant submits alternative proposals for a more modest design which includes a lower ridge height and omission of the proposed single storey garage to the front of the proposed house. • It is further submitted that the proposed development will demolish a single storey derelict structure to the front which is more of an obstruction on the views of Leameneh Castle than the proposed development.

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 4 of 11

RESPONSES

None

PLANNING HISTORY

No planning history on the subject site.

Relevant planning histories in the area

• L.A. Ref. 07-477 – This site is situated to the north of the castle on the Road. Outline planning permission refused for a dwelling house for the following reasons (a) unacceptable risk to of pollution to groundwater, (b) Contrary to policy ‘CDP 46 Vulnerable Landscape’ and Policy ‘CDP 51 Scenic Route’, (c) impact on local recorded monument, Lemaneh Castle. No appeal to An Bord Pleanala.

• L.A. Ref. 06-555 – This site is situated immediately east of the current appeal site. Planning permission refused for a dwelling house for the following reasons (a) unacceptable risk of pollution to groundwater, (b) impact on local recorded monument, Lemaneh Castle, (c) Contrary to policy ‘CDP 46 Vulnerable Landscape’ and Policy ‘CDP 51 Scenic Route’. This application was subsequently appealed to An Bord Pleanala and refused for the same reason outlined above.

• L.A. Ref. 05-2168 – This site is situated approximately 100 metres west of the current appeal site. Planning sought for a dwelling house refused permission by the local authority and by An Bord Pleanala on appeal for the following reasons (a) impact on local recorded monument, Lemaneh Castle, (b) contrary to Policy CDP 68 ‘local need’, (c) traffic hazard.

• L.A. Ref. 04/449 – This site is situated approximately 100 metres east of the current appeal site. Planning permission granted for dwelling house subject to 17 conditions. No appeal to An Bord Pleanala.

DEVELOPMENT PLAN

The relevant development plan is the Clare County Council Development Plan 2005 - 2011 where the site is located in the open countryside and is not zoned.

The development strategy for rural development is set out in Section 6 of Chapter 1. In this regard distinctive settlement patterns are recognised whilst it is the intention to protect valuable landscape resources. The strategy encourages appropriate in-fill development whilst avoiding linear or ribbon development.

In accordance with Policy CDP 22 development requiring direct access onto the “ R 476 the road from Fountain Cross to Kilfenora ” will not be permitted.

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 5 of 11 Section 5 of Chapter 5 ‘Environment’ includes policies for areas designated ‘vulnerable landscapes’ (CDP 46) and areas designated ‘scenic routes’ (CDP 51). The appeal site is situated within a designated ‘Vulnerable Landscape’ area and also along a designated ‘Scenic Route’.

Section 3 and 4 of Chapter 6 ‘Housing’ sets out the policy and objectives for housing outside settlements and Policy CDP 66 aims to meet the needs for rural generated housing not identified as (i) under pressure from urban areas, (ii) in designated vulnerable landscapes. Policy CDP 68 states that dwellings for local rural persons will be permitted in areas designated as ‘vulnerable landscapes’ subject to a high quality design and layout.

Appendix 3, subsection 10 sets out the development standards and guidance in relation to rural housing.

North Clare Local Area Plan 2005 – 2011

The North Clare Local Area Plan 2005 also applies to the appeal site. Policy H3 of this Plan sets out the criteria for a local rural person seeking permission to erect a dwelling in this area. A copy of Policy H3 is attached. The LAP defines a local rural person as one who was born in the local area or who is living, or whose parents or children have been living, within the local area for a minimum of 10 years. It also includes local rural workers involved in inter alia full time or part time agriculture, where the predominant occupation is farming/natural resource related and persons whose work is linked to the local rural area.

According to the County Development Plan 2005, the nearby Leamanach Castle and House is a Protected Structure, No. 298, where it is described as “Townhouse, 17 th century Manor House, gardens and walls”. It is also listed on the Record of Monuments and Places as CL016-032 (containing numerous monuments) and the adjacent archaeological complex No. CL016-020 which contains 27 recorded monuments.

The Council has published a House Design Guide “ to facilitate the building of homes in the countryside that will contribute positively to the character of the area. In vulnerable landscape areas high quality design and sensitive treatment of siting and landscape works can make single rural houses complimentary to their landscape setting ”.

NATIONAL POLICY

Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines The subject site is located within an ‘Structurally weaker rural area’ as identified in Map 1: Indicative Outline of the NSS rural areas types in the DOEHLG Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2005. The Guidelines note that “these areas will exhibit characteristics such as persistent and significant population decline as well as a weaker economic structure based on indices of income, employment and economic growth”.

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 6 of 11 ASSESSMENT

The main issues to be considered in this case are: -

• Principle of development • Traffic Hazard • Drainage • Heritage • Contrary to Policy CDP 46 & CDP 51 • Material Contravention

Principle of Development

It was considered by the local authority that the proposed development would be contrary to Policy CDP 68 and would therefore materially contravene the objectives of the development plan.

The appellant submits that they would comply with Policy H3 of the Local Area Plan. The appellant further states that their parents moved to Leamaneh in 1972 and they resided there until her father died in 1987 and mother died in 1993. The appellant also has siblings living in Leamaneh and claim that their proposal would comply with the guidelines for Sustainable Rural Housing which recognises the rights of returning emigrants who lived substantial parts of their lives in rural areas and now wish to return to that rural area to reside near other family members or retire. In further support to the appellants claim for ‘local need’ there are letters on the file from a Community Development organisation in London confirming that the applicant retired in 2007 and now wishes to return to Ireland. Finally, as part of the original planning application, a map was included outlining the applicant’s former family home and existing family home in Leamaneh.

The appeal site is situated in a designated ‘Vulnerable Landscape’ area in accordance with the provisions of the County Development Plan. Policy CDP 68 refers to areas of designated vulnerable landscapes where the development of single houses for permanent occupation of local rural persons is subject to high design, sitting, layout which does not have an adverse impact on the landscape.

The key wording in the Policy CDP 68, for this particular case, is local rural person. The meaning of a local rural person is outlined in Section 3.5 of Chapter 6 of the County Development Plan. The key element of this policy is whether the applicant can be defined as a local rural person in accordance with the criteria of the plan.

• A person who was born in the local area: The appellant was not born in the local area.

• A person who is living, or whose parents or children have been living, within the area for a minimum of 10 years: The appellants parents were living in Leamaneh from 1972 until 1993.

• A person who has spend a substantial part of their lives as part of the rural community but have left and wish to return. The appellant was born in

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 7 of 11 Bellharbour in 1944 and her parents moved to Leamaneh in 1972, and in 2007 the appellant returned from London to retire in the area.

• A person involved in full-time or part-time in farming where the predominant occupation is farming/ natural resources related: The appellant is not involved in full-time or part-time farming.

• A person whose works is linked to the local rural area: The appellant is retired and their work is not linked to the local rural area.

Deriving from the above I would conclude that the appellant has some ties with the local area and that their primarily claim to a ‘ local rural person’ in accordance with the provisions of the plan would be that they have lived a substantial part of their lives in the area and now wish to return to this area. However there is no definitive information on the file, with the original planning application or with the appeal submission, that confirms the appellant has spend a substantial part of their live in the relevant local area. In this regard the appellant was born in Bellharbour, some distance from Leamaneh, and it is acknowledged that their parents moved to Leamaneh in 1972, but there is no information on the file to demonstrate that the applicant has lived in Leamaneh for a substantial period of their live, apart from the period 2003 – 2004 which is indicated on the planning application form. In addition the submitted map on the file which outlines the family home and former family home in Leamaneh is at an in determined location as such the maps supplied are not sufficient to demonstrate the appellant’s case. With regard to the other criteria for a local rural person, outlined above, I would conclude that the appellant would not fulfil the requirements.

It is therefore considered that insufficient information has been provided to support the appellant’s claim that she is a local rural person and therefore I would consider that the applicant fails to demonstrate compliance with Policy H3.

Traffic Hazard

In accordance with CDP 22 of the County Development Plan, no developments are permitted along the road (R476) where access is required, except in particular circumstances. CDP 22(c) applies in this case, which states that “ Infill sites where space exists for not more than two dwellings between existing dwellings, or between sites with permission with at least two years to run ”.

The proposed development is located adjacent to a dwelling to the west of the appeal site and there are dwellings nearby to the east of the appeal site. In addition there is a site, with planning permission for a house (L.A. Ref. 04/449), between the existing houses to east and the appeal site. I would concur with the appellant that the sightlines for the proposed vehicular access are acceptable in both directions. It is also noted that in a previous appeal (Ref. 218828) for a house on the site adjacent to the current appeal site that local authority refused permission for vehicular access but on appeal the Board did not uphold this refusal reason as it considered that the site was an infill site in accordance with CDP22 (c) of the development plan.

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 8 of 11 Therefore, the proposal to provide an access to the dwelling from the R476 is considered acceptable and I would not support the local authority’s second reason for refusal.

Drainage The appeal site is located in a karst landscape over a regionally important aquifer. Therefore, any potential impact of the development upon the groundwater must be carefully considered.

The appellant, in their submission, outlines that the ground water protection response is R 2 and that the EPA manual for single rural dwellings states that a conventional septic tank with an adequate soil polishing filter is acceptable on a site with a ground water protection response of R2. The site analysis submitted in support of the application confirms that the P value is 15 and is therefore within the acceptable percolation range of 1 – 50 in accordance EPA guidelines.

The applicant proposes to install a P6 Environcare treatment system and a raised soil polishing filter. The polishing filter is to be constructed of a soil / subsoil with a P/T value of between 1 and 20. It is submitted that rock was encountered at 0.95m and subsoil contained a larger number of boulders and it is therefore proposed to construct the soil polishing filter on top of the existing rock while providing a minimum of 1.2m suitable soil/subsoil below the invert of the soil polishing filter. As the site slopes from the rear to the front the applicant proposes locating the soil polishing filter to the front of the site and it will be able to flow with a gravity function.

However, the appellant has not indicated the site levels in their submission and it would appear from their submission the proposal will not include a pump and will solely rely on a gravity flow. Although it is acknowledged, from my site inspection, that site slopes downward towards the front of the site I would have concerns that the appellant has not provided a back-up pump should the gravity system fail.

Having regard to the extreme vulnerability of the groundwater regime of the area, and the relatively high concentration of septic tanks in the area I would consider adopting a precautionary approach in this instance and therefore supporting the local authority’s third reason for refusal.

Heritage

The proximity of the proposed development to Leamaneh Castle and other recorded monuments formed the fourth reason in the Council’s decision to refuse permission. In the Conservation Officer’s report of Clare County Council, it is stated that the “castle complex is one of the most important collections of archaeological monuments in the country, most of which date from the 15 th , 16 th and 17 th centuries. They are mainly associated with the late medieval tower house of the O’Briens of Leamaneh and the adjoining, great, four-storey house………”. The Conservation Officer concludes that “ the provision of another new house so close to these complexes would seriously impact on the monuments both visually and archaeologically, would be unsympathetic to the setting of these groups of recorded monument ……… ”

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 9 of 11 It is noted that the appellant argues that it is not possible for the proposed development to impact on the views of the Castle to the east of the appeal site and that there are two houses and a large farm building to the east between the appeal site and the castle.

In a recent Board decision (Ref. 217654) to the west of the appeal site (i.e. further removed from Leamaneh Castle), the Inspector noted that the development of a dwelling on a green field site “ will intrude into this sensitive cultural landscape. I do not consider that such intrusion occurred with the previous permitted dwelling to the east of the site (P04/449-Bernadette O’Connor’s permitted development) as it was in replacement of an existing structure, and was contained within a context of built form as opposed to an open elevated site as in this instance ”. The Board upheld the inspector’s recommendation and in addition a more recent appeal (Ref. 218828) the Board refused permission for a house to the adjoining site to the east of the appeal site due to its impact on the cultural heritage of the area.

In the context of the rich cultural landscape and archaeological wealth of the immediate environs of the appeal site and the adjacent dwellings to east of the site which are better screened, it is considered that the proposed development would unduly intrude into this rural landscape, would diminish the setting of the historic and archaeological structures and would set an unwelcome precedent for other such development in the area.

Contrary to Policy CDP 46 & CDP 51

The applicant proposes a single storey dwelling which is traditional in form and design consisting of a plaster elevation finish, cut limestone lintels and local stone to the front porch and side extensions.

Overall, though I consider the design and layout of the dwelling to be acceptable, and that it will not interfere with, or impact upon, the character, integrity and uniformity of the landscape, particularly when viewed from the public road. Should permission be granted, I recommend a condition requiring all details of external materials and finishes to be agreed with the Planning Authority. In addition, it is essential that high quality landscaping and boundary treatment occurs to the site, particularly along its southern (road) side – none is proposed in this instance. This can be ensured by means of a condition of permission.

It is noted that the appellant, in their submission, includes for the Board’s consideration, alternative design proposals for the proposed single storey dwelling.

Material Contravention

The Board will note that, the Planning Authority’s first and second reason for refusal stated that the proposal would “materially contravene” Policies CDP 68 and CDP 22 of the County Clare Development Plan 2005 – 2011. Although the Board is constrained by Section 37(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 – 2006, the proposed development is not, in my view, a material contravention of the Clare County Development Plan 2005 – 2008 and the approval of the proposal, should the

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 10 of 11 Board be so minded, is not of a significance which undermines the provisions or relevant objectives of the Development Plan.

RECOMMENDATION

I have read the submissions on the file, visited the site, had due regard to the development plan and all other matters arising. I recommend that planning permission be refused for the reasons set out below.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

1. The subject site is located in the open countryside in an area identified as a Visually Vulnerable Landscape. In such areas, Policy CDP 68 of the Clare County Development Plan 2005 and Policy H3 of the North Clare Local Area Plan 2003 apply. These policies which seek to restrict dwellings to those required for permanent occupation by a local rural person or local rural worker are considered reasonable. The Board does not consider that the appellant has adequately demonstrated that she is a local rural person or a local rural worker. It is considered that the proposed development would set an unwelcome precedent for similar developments in the open countryside and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. The proposed development would be located in close proximity to Recorded Monuments CL-016-032, including Leamanach Castle, numerous monuments and CL-016-020. The Board is not satisfied, on the basis of submissions made in connection with the application and appeal that the proposed development would not interfere with its archaeological and historical setting, or conflict with Policy CDP53 of the Clare County Development Plan 2005. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

3. The Board is not satisfied that the proposed use of a proprietary wastewater treatment system on a site with karst outcrops and thin overburden will permit the site to be drained satisfactorily; therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would be prejudicial to public health.

______Kenneth Moloney Planning Inspector 23 rd July 2008

PL03.228234 An Bord Pleanala Page 11 of 11