An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development

House, treatment system and associated site works at Rossadillisk, , Co. Galway.

Planning Application

Planning Authority: Galway County Council

Planning Authority Register Reference: 07/1115

Applicant: Emmet de Courcey

Type of Application: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Refusal

Planning Appeal

Appellant(s): Emmet de Courcey

Type of Appeal: First Party

Observer(s): None

Date of Site Inspection: 4th December, 2007

Inspector: Kevin Moore

______PL 07.225030 An Bord Pleanala Page 1 of 8 1.0 APPLICATION DETAILS

There is a first party appeal by Emmet de Courcey against a decision by Galway County Council to refuse permission for the construction of a dwelling and the installation of a septic tank and Puraflo effluent treatment system at Rossadillisk, Cleggan, Co. Galway.

The applicant is the son of the owner of the 0.5904 hectare site upon which it is proposed to construct a four bedroom, single-storey house with a stated floor area of 158.21 square metres. The house would be served by a group water supply scheme and a private effluent treatment system. It is also proposed to construct a domestic garage and fuel store with a floor area of 47.88 square metres to the rear of the house. Details submitted with the application included a site characterisation assessment, a letter from the Secretary of the group water supply scheme permitting a connection to same, a completed rural housing need form, family landownership, and employment details.

The reports to the planning authority were as follows:

The Planner noted the site was in an area designated Landscape Sensitivity Class 4 and stated a housing need is required. It was stated that an address in Ballinasloe was given for the landowner and clarification of this was needed. A request for further information was recommended, seeking more details on the applicant's and his family's links to the area.

A response to the further information request was received by the planning authority on 28th June, 2007. This provided details of the applicant's associations in the area since his return from the United States in 2005 and a letter indicating that his parents are from Knockbrack, Cleggan and and that they have been residing at Rossadillisk there since his father's retirement in 2001.

Following this submission, the Planner noted that the applicant's parents were originally from the area, that the applicant has only moved to the area in recent years, and that it appears he is from Ballinasloe originally. It was considered that this would not imply the applicant is an intrinsic part of the community. A refusal of permission was recommended.

On 24th July, 2007, Galway County Council decided to refuse permission for the development for one reason relating to the applicant not demonstrating an essential housing need in the area designated Special Landscape Sensitivity.

2.0 SITE DETAILS

2.1 Site Inspection

I inspected the appeal site on December, 2007 and photographs taken on that date are appended at the back of the report.

______PL 07.225030 An Bord Pleanala Page 2 of 8

2.2 Site Location and Description

The site of the proposed development is located in the townland of Rossadillisk, near a peninsula end, a coastal location approximately 1.6km west of the village of Cleggan in . The site is accessed via a minor local road from the Cleggan- Claddaghduff Road. The site lies on the east side of the road and opposite the seashore. It is a wet boggy plot with open drains along its western and southern boundaries. The site has panoramic sea views westwards, northwards and eastwards. Housing is sporadic in the area and there are one-off houses to the north, east and south.

2.3 Galway County Development Plan 2003-2009

Rural Housing

Sections 4.8 and 4.9 refer and include the following:

As a general principle, subject to good planning practice in matters of location, siting, design and the protection of environmentally sensitive areas of high landscape value, rural generated housing needs are to be accommodated in areas where they arise. With regard to urban generated rural housing in the open countryside, development driven by urban areas is required to take place, as a general principle, within the built up areas and on lands identified through the development plan process for integrated, serviced and sustainable development.

Policies include:

Policy 89: While it is necessary to control inappropriate residential development in the countryside, "one-off" development for those who are

(1) functionally dependent on the land, or (2) who have an essential rural housing need, or (3) who support the rural economy or (4) who are involved in rural economic activities

will be facilitated.

Landscape Conservation

The site is within a designated Class 4 - Special Landscape Character Area, i.e. the second highest landscape classification in the Plan.

Policies include:

______PL 07.225030 An Bord Pleanala Page 3 of 8 Policy 107: Preserve the character of the landscape where, and to the extent that, in the opinion of the planning authority, the proper planning and sustainable development of the area requires it, including the preservation of views and prospects and the amenities of places and features of natural beauty or interest.

Coastal Zone

Policies include:

Policy 164: Protect and preserve the quality of the coastline.

Development Control: Objectives and Standards

DC Standard 11: Compliance with Landscape Sensitivity Designations

The type of development generally acceptable within the Class 4 Area of Sensitivity is restricted to essential residential needs of local households and family farm business.

Note: (1) The appellant referred to Policy 90(2) of the Plan in support of the appeal submission. This policy is applicable to proposals within the Galway Transportation and Planning Study area. The appeal site is well beyond the boundary of this area.

(2) The appellant submitted that the planning authority mistakenly referred to DC Standard 11 in its reason for refusal and should have referred to DC Standard 10. The polanning authority's reference was correct.

2.4 Planning History

I have no record of any previous planning application or appeal relating to this site.

3.0 FIRST PARTY APPEAL

The grounds of the appeal may be synopsised as follows:

* It is acknowledged that the appellant was not born or educated in the local area but there are significant family ties with the area. Details of the applicant's parents links with the area are submitted in the appeal submission. * The reason for refusal incorrectly cites DC Standard 11 of the Development Plan as the criteria under which the applicant's housing need was assessed. It is DC Standard 10. Taking into account the long family history and strong ties to the rural community in which the application was made, the appellant has substantiated an essential residential need of a local household.

______PL 07.225030 An Bord Pleanala Page 4 of 8 * Section 4.8 of the Development Plan clearly states that rural generated housing needs arise for people who are an intrinsic part of the rural community by way of background or the fact that they work full-time or part-time in rural areas. The appellant is an intrinsic part of the rural community by way of background and his current employment status. * The appellant was born in Galway and educated in Ahascragh and Ballinasloe. He emigrated to the USA in 1998 and returned in December 2005, where he has resided in the family home and has been working as a self-employed blocklayer until securing full-time employment with his uncle's building firm. * Policy 90(2) of the Development Plan states special consideration will be given for residential development, in bona fide cases, for persons with actual work or employment in a local area. * If the appellant is successful in securing permission, his father will transfer his herd number for the lands at Rossadillisk to the appellant to ensure that agricultural activities are continued. * The planning authority did not adequately address the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines. From Section 3.2 of that publication it is evident that the development is proposed to be located in an area that is structurally weak and has exhibited characteristics of persistent and significant population decline allied to a weak economic structure. The appellant has become actively involved in local organisations since residing in Rossadillisk and has demonstrated intrinsic links.

4.0 ASSESSMENT

I will have regard to the issues considered relevant to the appeal under the following headings:

Housing Need

The site of the proposed development is located in an area designated Landscape Sensitivity Class 4, the second highest sensitivity rating for County Galway. Applications for one-off houses in this area are required to establish a housing need before a proposal can be deemed to be acceptable in principle. The applicant in this instance does not have any exceptional circumstances that would determine he has an essential housing need to be accommodated at this location. He is a blocklayer who has recently returned to from the USA. It is apparent that the nature of this work does not tie him to Rossadillisk or, indeed, to Cleggan. It would be my understanding that he most likely would be employed in the larger settlements of the area where development is ongoing. The information that the applicant submitted in support of his housing need in the further information submission was applicable to his parents, not to the applicant and could not be accepted as evidence to justify his obtaining permission to provide a residence at Rossadillisk. The applicant has no true established links with this area. He clearly was not born, reared or schooled in this area. It would appear that he has links with East Galway in the Ballinasloe area. Neither of his parents is from Rossadillisk - one parent is from the town of Clifden and one is from Knockbrack, which is east of Rossadillisk and notably

______PL 07.225030 An Bord Pleanala Page 5 of 8 closer to the village of Cleggan. In my opinion, it seriously undermines orderly development in highly scenic areas if parents can recently acquire a few small plots of land in this area (one under severe pressure from one-off housing), live in the locality for a short time in this area, and then this, as a consequence, entitles their children to a house at this location in principle. In other words, because the appellant's parents have a one-off house in the area does not entitle him to have a house. He has no real ties to this area and he has not resided in this area for any notable length of time.

I note the appellant’s submission: "Taking into account the long family history and strong ties to the rural community in which the application was made, the appellant has substantiated an essential residential need of a local household." If one stretches the analogy that one has links with an area based on ones parents links to an area and the generations gone past of one's family who had links with an area to entitle one to a house in a rural area, then it is likely that accepting this would result in a significant destruction of our countryside by one-off housing as most of the population of the country could aspire to a house in the countryside. In my opinion, the appellant's contention makes a mockery of the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines, notably the need to demonstrate real and meaningful intrinsic links with an area, while at the same time ensuring the protection of our most important landscapes for future generations.

The appellant also maintains that the planning authority did not adequately address the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines and it is submitted that, from Section 3.2 of that publication, it is evident that the development is proposed to be located in an area that is structurally weak and has exhibited characteristics of persistent and significant population decline allied to a weak economic structure. This is an area being decimated by holiday home development and one-off housing. The quality of this landscape is being degraded by proposals such as that now before the Board which are being permitted. This area, and indeed the wider Cleggan area, is one under severe housing pressure. The area is suffering environmentally from this pressure. It is not structurally weak from the lack of housing that is being built. The quality of the environment is being weakened because of the type of development that is being proposed in the locations where such development is being proposed, i.e. the most scenic and visually most precious landscapes remote from settlements. The appellant has no need to reside at this location, he has no true links to this area, and the precedent that would be set by accepting his submission would be seriously detrimental to this scenic, coastal area.

It is essential to focus non-essential residential development in this area into serviced villages and towns to counter the unsustainable pattern of ribbon development and haphazard rural housing that is being permitted to prevail. Addressing the question of rural housing need must be based upon rational planning. Accepting that the applicant lives with his parents in a one-off house in this scenic area cannot be the yardstick to determine that the applicant is also entitled to a one-off house in the countryside.

______PL 07.225030 An Bord Pleanala Page 6 of 8 Impact on Visual Amenity

The planning authority made reference in its reason for refusal to the landscape sensitivity of this location such that the issue of visual impact could be determined not to be a new issue now before the Board. This site is in a highly scenic location. It has exceptional panoramic sea views to the west, east and north. Siting a house at this location is a further erosion of the natural amenity of this area. It contributes to a pattern of sprawl that is being allowed to develop at this location. Whether essential or non-essential, this house on this open and exposed site would run contrary to policies 107 and 164 of the Galway County Development Plan. The character of the landscape is not being preserved nor is the quality of the coastline being protected by development that clearly intrudes upon it in an adverse way. The landscape character would be greatly undermined by the proposal as a result of the further erosion of the natural amenity of this area.

Effluent Disposal

This is a new issue not raised by the parties to the appeal. This is a serious environmental issue of particular relevance to this proposal. The applicant is going to extensive lengths to attempt to make wholly unsuited bogland suitable for the disposal of septic tank effluent. The attempts to engineer a solution to the obvious unsuitable site cannot address the reality that final effluent being disposed to ground on this site poses a significant pollution threat. The drainage ditches around the perimeter of the site were holding water at the time of my inspection. The open trial hole had water to a depth of approximately 1 metre below ground level. The soils on the site comprise typical bogland. Having inspected this site and reviewed the ground conditions, I consider that achieving a 'T' value of 23 is exceptional. These soils have very poor drainage characteristics and ponding would occur on this site over time. The proposed development poses a definite pollution threat.

5.0 RECOMMENDATION

I recommend that permission is refused for the following reasons and considerations:

Reasons and Considerations

1. The proposed development is located in a highly scenic, coastal rural area designated Landscape Sensitivity Class 4 - Special in the current Galway County Development Plan, an area restricted to essential residential needs of local households and family farm business, and a rural area that is undergoing significant development pressure for one-off housing. The applicant has not demonstrated a rural generated housing need at this location in accordance with the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines and in accordance with the requirements of the Galway County Development Plan. It is considered that the proposed development would exacerbate and contribute to the disorderly pattern of housing development, would constitute haphazard, one-off housing contrary to

______PL 07.225030 An Bord Pleanala Page 7 of 8 the provisions of the Guidelines, would lead to demands for the uneconomic provision of further public services and communal facilities in the area, would interfere with the rural character of the area and would seriously injure the amenities of this rural area. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. The proposed development would be sited in a prominent, open and exposed rural location close to the shoreline at Rossadillisk, an area of significant scenic amenity and tourism value, within a landscape sensitivity area designated 'special' in the current Galway County Development Plan. It is the policy of the planning authority, as set out in the current Galway County Development Plan, to preserve the character of the landscape where the proper planning and sustainable development of the area requires it, including the preservation of views and prospects and the amenities of places and features of natural beauty or interest. Furthermore, it is a policy to protect and preserve the quality of the coastline. It is considered that the development of a dwelling at this prominent, open and exposed location, in addition to existing residential development in the vicinity, would constitute a highly intrusive development that would detract from the rural character and scenic amenities of this sensitive and vulnerable area, would conflict with the Development Plan policies, and would contribute to the erosion of the visual and environmental amenity of the area. The proposed development would, thus, seriously injure the amenities of the area and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

3. Having regard to the poor drainage characteristics of the site, it is considered that, notwithstanding the proposed use of a proprietary effluent treatment system, the proposed development would constitute an unacceptable risk of pollution and would be prejudicial to public health.

______Kevin Moore Senior Planning Inspector December, 2007.

______PL 07.225030 An Bord Pleanala Page 8 of 8