An Bord Pleanála Ref.: PL61.243215

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Site Address: 119/121 Kingshill, Road Upper, City.

Proposal: Omit basement car park (06/1031 refers) construct private surface car park for residents, revised elevations, omit access steps retain and complete units.

Planning Application

Planning Authority: Galway

Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 13/266

Applicants: Thomas McEvaddy

Type of Application: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Grant

Planning Appeal

Appellant: James Cunningham

Type of Appeal: 3rd party –v- grant

Observers: None

Date of Site Inspection: 21 st June 2014

Inspector: G. Ryan

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 24

1.0 SITE...... 3 2.0 PROPOSAL ...... 4 2.9 Further information request and response...... 5 3.0 SUMMARY OF REPORTS TO THE PLANNING AUTHORITY ...... 8 3.1 Planning Officers first report ...... 8 3.2 Planning officer’s second report...... 8 3.3 Departmental Reports...... 9 3.4 Representations...... 9 4.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISION...... 10 5.0 HISTORY ...... 11 6.0 POLICY...... 13 6.1 ‘Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments’ 13 6.2 Galway City Development Plan 2011-2017 ...... 14 7.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL...... 15 8.0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES ...... 16 8.1 Planning Authority...... 16 8.2 First Party Response to Third Party Appeal...... 16 9.0 OBSERVERS...... 17 10.0 ASSESSMENT ...... 17 10.1 Principle of Development...... 17 10.2 Standard of residential development ...... 18 10.3 Car Park ...... 19 10.4 Legal issues...... 20 10.5 Desirability of providing a route through the site...... 20 10.6 Interface with Public Park ...... 21 11.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION...... 21 12.0 REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS...... 21

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 24 1.0 SITE

1.1 The subject site is located in Salthill, in Galway City’s western suburbs, around 2km west of the city centre. Salthill is a commercial centre for the surrounding residential areas, as well as having a recreational and tourism function, located on the shores of Galway Bay. The site has dual frontage onto Salthill Road Upper 1 to the west, and Quincentennial Drive to the east. Salthill Road Upper forms part of the City’s regional road network, along with Seapoint Promenade to the south. Quincentennial Drive runs parallel and between the two.

1.2 Quincentennial Drive is effectively in two cul-de-sac sections, the southern portion accessed from Seapoint Promenade, with the northern section accessed from Grattan Road. There is a short ‘missing’ section where its alignment passes the subject site and the site to the north. Between Quincentennial Drive and Seapoint Promenade is Claude Toft Park.

1.3 The section of Salthill Road Upper to the southwest of the subject site, towards the junction with Seapoint Parade, is characterised by commercial uses at ground floor level, whereas the plots surrounding the subject site, and on the opposite side of the road, are predominantly residential in character.

1.4 Salthill Road Upper forms the commercial spine of the area, with a diverse use mix of retail, restaurants, pubs, and entertainment venues. The block of land between Quincentennial Drive and Seapoint Promenade accommodates the National Aquarium and a tourist office, as well as areas of open space and car parking. A ‘run’ of multi-storey apartment blocks line the west side of Quincentennial Drive, often over ground or basement level parking facilities.

1.5 The site itself has a stated area of 0.2273ha. The Salthill Road Upper end of the site accommodates a residential block (‘Block A’) which was built in the last decade. It presents 5 storeys to the east and 4 to the west, the lower of the storeys on the western (street) frontage being ‘blanked out’ and the subject of the current application. A single- carriageway laneway to the side of the property provides pedestrian access via a door to the side of Block A as well as providing access to the rear of the adjacent property to the north. Onward potential vehicular access is prevented by temporary fencing.

1.6 There is a small concrete yard to the rear of Block A. Aside from some balconies at the rear elevation and at the top level, there is no open space, and no car parking available to this residential block. There is a high mound at the Salthill Road Upper Frontage which is contained behind retaining walls.

1 Also known as simply ‘Salthill Upper’, or at this point ‘Kingshill’.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 24 1.7 The centre and rear of the site, facing Quincentennial Drive is overgrown, with intermittent refuse and discarded building material. There is a block of chalets which are derelict. There is temporary fencing along the boundaries which is falling into disrepair.

1.8 There was permission on this site for two residential Blocks, Block A which was constructed, and Block B which was not. Due to Block B not having been constructed, there is no parking or open space for Block A.

2.0 PROPOSAL

The scheme can essentially be divided into two main sections, the proposed car park, and the proposed new ‘basement’ apartments. 2.1 Car Park

2.1.1 It is proposed to omit the permitted basement car park (albeit that this permission has expired) and to construct a surface car park roughly on the footprint of the permitted Block B to provide for the residents of Block A.

2.2 New ‘basement’ Apartments

2.2.1 It is proposed to fit out and use the space at ‘level 2’ (street level) to the front of Block A as two one-bed apartments.

2.2.2 Connected with this aspect of the scheme is the proposal to retain changes to the front elevation, and to omit permitted steps to the front of Block A.

2.3 Cover letter

The cover letter submitted with the application contains the following information and assertions of note.

2.4 Following grants of permission for development of two blocks on site, ‘A’ facing Salthill Road Upper and ‘B’ to the rear, the ownership of the site was disputed by the keyholders of the tin sheds to the rear of the site. This dispute was only recently concluded. Block A was constructed, whereas block B, the basement car park, and its access ramp were not.

2.5 During construction, a natural basement was formed at level 2 to the front of Block A. Permission was refused [PA Reg. Ref. No. 10/30] to retain this new space as storage, but it was refused as the balance of the development was not completed and the amenities to Block A were outstanding – car parking and open space.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 24 2.6 The applicant was refused permission by the board [PL 61.241260 (PA Ref. 10/369)] for a revised Block B, and the original permission – 06/1031 – has expired.

2.7 The proposed development would provide the amenity standards outstanding to Block A, and is no longer constrained by the previously extant permission for Block B.

2.8 The Development Ratio [sic] of the permitted development is 0.44, whereas the subject proposal would result in a plot ratio of 0.51. Adjoining sites have plot ratios of 1.5, 1.6, and 1.7. While the two new apartments would push the site beyond the recommended threshold of 0.46, this is envisaged by section 11.7.1 of the Development Plan [see section 6.1 below]

2.9 Further information request and response

Prior to issuing a decision, the planning authority sought further information on 8 points, which can be summarised as follows, along with the response from the applicant, and the assessmetn of the planning officer. This response was re-advertised by way of public notices.

Planning authority Applicant’s response 10/1/14 Planning request Officer’s assessment 1. Requests the Revised drawings submitted to Notes compliance provision of this effect. with this request. landscaped buffers between every 6 car parking spaces.

2. Requests Access to the proposed car Notes response clarification on park is to be solely from on this matter. potential vehicular Quincentennial Drive. The access via Salthill access from Salthill Upper is for Road Upper and the neighbouring property and the use of the emergency access. internal link Topography and bollards will roadway. prevent a through-route.

3. Demonstrate how Asserts that the apartments do States that the the apartments comply. Refers to Drawing K-04 applicant has would comply with PL-02 Fi-02, which is annotated demonstrated the “Design in this regard. compliance with Standards for New the apartment Apartments”. There guidelines. are concerns in this area.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 24 Planning authority Applicant’s response 10/1/14 Planning request Officer’s assessment 4. The planning Proposes reductions to the Notes proposal to authority is embankment to improve natural step the seriously lighting. embankment. concerned about the access to light for the proposed apartments, with a 3m high raised area 1.6m from the front of the building. Regrading or reduction of this area is to be examined.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 24 Planning authority Applicant’s response 10/1/14 Planning request Officer’s assessment 5. Pedestrian access Asserts that a pedestrian Notes provision of to Salthill Road access to Salthill Road Upper is pedestrian access Upper is preferred. maintained. point.

6. Please comment on A letter from Callan Tansey Matters pertaining right-of-way issues solicitors asserts that the to title of property, raised by 3 rd parties applicant has full title over the including legal and provide any lands in question, and asserts rights of way, are court judgements. that the area including the ‘side not for the passage’ was bought in 2005. planning authority or An Bord The text of this conveyance Pleanála to document make reference to a determine. The right of way over an area parties can have coloured green and marked “A” recourse to the – “13” to a house called “Wave courts. Crest” and a further right of way to a house called “St. Enda's”.

Legal documentation submitted includes mapping related to the applicant’s lands from the 2005 Deed of Conveyance. However, only the eastern portion of the site is included in the A4 copies on file, which are also in black and white. As such, these details do little to inform the relevant issues. 2

This letter counters any claim that part of the rear of the site is owned by the City Council.

No. 113 enjoys a pedestrian access directly from Upper Salthill and vehicular access from the block of Apartments formerly known as the Galway Bay hotel.

2 This map does however appear to be replicated in full and in colour in the first party response to the appeal.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 24 Planning authority Applicant’s response 10/1/14 Planning request Officer’s assessment 7. The RA zoned Boundary between R and RA The applicant has lands have not zoned lands are shown. Refers provided open been indicated on to plans for open space. space exclusive of the layout plan. the RA zoned Submit proposals lands that would that would comply meet development with Table 11.2 of plan requirements. the Development Plan regarding recreational facilities.

8. Boundary details to Refers to submitted drawings. Notes the be provided, submission of particularly boundary details. regarding interface of site with park.

Table 1.

3.0 SUMMARY OF REPORTS TO THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

3.1 Planning Officers first report

The issues raised in the planning officer’s fist report are largely reflected in the further information request summarised in section 2.9 above. Other points of note can be summarised as follows.

3.1.1 The alterations to the western (Salthill Upper) elevation of Block A could be permitted retention even in if the apartments are not permitted.

3.1.2 The use of the area proposed for the two new apartments was refused as storage under 10/30 for two reasons; plot ratio and car parking. As regards plot ratio, a relaxation may be considered under the development plan where other residential amenity standards have been complied with. The proposal is considered acceptable on this issue.

3.1.3 The finished floor area of the apartments would be comparable to the public footpath at Salthill Upper. The raised area is a historic legacy of the original site.

3.2 Planning officer’s second report

3.2.1 The planning officer’s response to the 8 items of further information are summarised in the 3 rd column of Table 1 above. Aside from

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 24 these comments, the planning officer calculates the development contribution based on two residential units, states that the proposed development is acceptable and recommends conditions.

3.3 Departmental Reports

3.3.1 Recreation and Amenity Department

3.3.1.1 No objections subject to conditions, including the submission or a revised Landscape Plan.

3.3.2 Drainage Section

3.3.2.1 No objections subject to conditions. A second report following the receipt of further information reiterates this position.

3.3.3 Water Services

3.3.3.1 No objections. A second report following the receipt of further information reiterates this position.

3.3.4 Roads Section

3.3.4.1 No objection.

3.4 Representations

3.4.1 James Cunningham (current appellant)

3.4.2 Objections were submitted on behalf of the current appellant. The matters raised in the appellant’s objections are largely reflected in the appeal grounds summarised in section 7.0 below. In addition, Mr Cunningham makes reference to the location of the proposed bin store on or immediately close to the asserted right of way. Following the receipt of further information, a second submission from Mr Cunningham reiterates the points above.

3.4.3 Ciaran Smyth (current observer)

3.4.3.1 Mr Smyth gives an address of “Sea Verge”, 113 Upper Salthill. I understand that this is the detached house to the north of the subject site, to the rear (Claude Toft Park end) of the plot.

3.4.3.2 Mr Smyth does not give any grounds for his objection, but refers to ‘my right of way down to my house’.

3.4.3.3 Following the receipt of further information, a second submission from Mr Smyth asserts that the green area in front of his house has been part of his property since the early 1960s, and that the right of way has been used to access Salthill since the 1960s also. During recent flooding, Mr Smyth and his family were unable to drive to work due to the Galway Bay apartments being flooded. This would

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 24 not have been the case had access to the right of way to Kings Hill been available. The applicant has blocked

3.4.4 James Ward

3.4.4.1 Mr Ward gives an address of 1 Beach Avenue, a small cul-de-sac around 100m to the southwest.

3.4.4.2 Mr Ward asserts that there has always been a public right-of-way through this site. If it is blocked, the owner of the adjacent field would effectively be land-locked.

3.4.4.3 The proposed car park could mean that the council’s land might be eroded gradually as has happened with other redevelopments in the area.

3.4.4.4 Following the receipt of further information, a second submission from Mr Ward reiterates the points above.

4.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISION

The planning authority decided to grant permission subject to 10 conditions, many of which could be considered ‘standard’ conditions. Others of note can be summarised as follows:-

2 Prior to the commencement of development, a revised floor plan and front elevation shall be submitted which omits the proposed front elevation door which would access from the bedrooms onto the patios and insert a window in its place. A new front elevation door shall be provided accessing from the inside element of the bay windows.

4 The proposals for boundary fencing and gates shall be omitted. Revised details in accordance with the R/RA zoning interface shall be submitted for agreement.

5 A landscaping plan to be submitted including recreational facility details and boundary treatment. A play area is required.

7 Parking spaces to be reserved for the exclusive use of the residential occupiers of the development.

10. €26,380 to be paid in accordance with the development contribution scheme.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 24 5.0 HISTORY

5.1 PA Reg. Ref. No. 04/747

Planning permission was granted for the demolition of existing residential buildings; the construction of a 4-storey plus penthouse apartment (Building A) and a 2-storey plus penthouse apartment building (Block B); construction of an underground car park

5.2 PL61.218144 (PA Reg. Ref. No. 05/939)

Permission refused on appeal for variations to PA Reg. Ref. No. 04/747 to comprise of

a) omission of ‘Block B’ previously granted under PA Reg. Ref. No. 04/747 and the construction of a 5-storey plus penthouse level apartment block comprising of 16 no. 2-bedroom units;

b) demolition of three number existing tin shacks;

c) extension to basement car park previously granted under PA Reg. Ref. No. 04/747 and provision of separate access ramp;

The board’s refusal reason cited overdevelopment and residential amenity of adjoining properties.

5.3 PA Reg. Ref. No. 06/1031

Permission granted for variations and amendments to planning permission granted under PA Reg. Ref. No. 04/747, comprising of

a) omission of ‘Block B’ and the construction in its place of a 3-storey apartment block comprised of 8 no. 2 bedroom dwelling units;

b) demolition of 3 no. existing tin shacks;

c) an extension to the basement car park previously granted planning permission under PA Reg. Ref. No. 04/747;

d) provision of a separate access ramp together with all associated site works and services on an enlarged site.

Of note to the Board, Condition No. 6 states that: “the existing right-of-way shall remain open for general use of the public. Full details regarding surfacing and lighting shall be submitted for the written agreement of the Planning Authority before the commencement of development”.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 24 5.4 PA Reg. Ref. No. 10/30

Permission refused for the retention of two units with a total floor area of 111-sq.m. and two external doors at ‘Block A’, of previous granted planning permission PA Reg. Ref. No. 04/747 to be used solely for the purpose of storage for the Apartments Nos 1 to 9, ‘Block A’. Retention planning permission was also sought for the removal of external steps to the front of ‘Block A’. The stated reasons for refusal were as follows:-

“1) The development is considered to be unacceptable in respect of the increased scale of development as a whole, and having regard to the Galway City Development Plan 2005-2011 policy objectives for this residential area. The Development Plan allows for flexibility in density for this area of Salthill “…where a relaxation of the maximum plot ratio of 0.46 may be considered only where the development is of a scale and height appropriate to its high setting” (Section 11.5). There is clearly an issue with increasing the density of development however in light of the unauthorised omission of the basement car park which formed part of the development as granted. It is clear that ‘the other residential amenity standards’ haven’t been complied with in this case. To allow for an increase in density would therefore contravene the Development Plan policy objectives for the site and would not be in the interests of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2) The lack of car parking provision to cater for the proposed development including the non-provision of the approved basement car park, raises traffic concerns and it is contrary to the requirements of the Development Plan. It is noted that the proposed use is stated to be for storage purposes; however, the retention of the two external doors and the internal height could facilitate the conversion for apartment use, which has been previously suggested by the applicant. Such use would require the provision of additional car parking spaces to serve the development. This would exacerbate the traffic and parking congestion in the vicinity of the development and in the Salthill area and would constitute a traffic hazard contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

5.5 PL 61.241260 (PA Ref. 10/369)

Permission refused for development consisting of

a) The omission of the approved Block B

b) The construction of a new Block B to the rear of the site to consist of a 1,571m 2 guest house. Three storeys over basement plus penthouse level.

c) Basement parking for 55 number cars, revisions to approved vehicular entrance.

d) 47m 2 extension to the rear of Block A.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 24 e) Change of use of the existing Block A from residential use to use as a guest house/holiday apartments.

f) Retention of the omission of the pedestrian access steps to Block A from Salthill Road Upper

The board refused permission for one reason, citing the following issues,

• Building lines, height, bulk,

• Proximity to boundaries and overdevelopment

• Injury to the amenities of property in the vicinity by overshadowing and visual overbearing.

Drawings available in relation to this appeal show the following for Block A (existing/proposed)

Level Front Rear (west) (east)

5 1 x 2-bed

4 2 x 2-bed 1 x 2-bed

3 2 x 2-bed 1 x 2-bed

2 void 1 x 2-bed

1 void 1 x 2-bed

0 void Car park

Table 2

6.0 POLICY

6.1 ‘Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments’

These guidelines require that, in accordance with Article 28 of the 2000 Planning and Development Act, “Planning authorities and An Bord Pleanála are required to have regard to the guidelines in carrying out their functions under the Planning Acts 2000 – 2006”. Some of the main recommendations of the guidelines are summarised below. o That provision is made for storage of bulky items not in daily use, such as a child’s buggy, and that this space should be additional to kitchen presses and bedroom furniture, but may be partly provided in these rooms. A store off a hallway or landing will facilitate access, but hot presses or boiler spaces do not count as general storage. Basement-level

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 24 storage is permissible. Minimum figures of 3m 2/6m 2/9m 2 for 1/2/3 bedroom units are recommended. o The requirements of drying clothes should be considered, as should adequate, secure, cycle parking. o Single-aspect apartments should allow the main living rooms to face south, west or east; north-facing units should be excluded. o Minimum overall apartment floor areas of 45m 2/73m 2/90m 2 for 1/2/3 bedroom units are recommended, and minimum floor areas and dimensions for individual rooms are given.

6.2 Galway City Development Plan 2011-2017

6.2.1 Zoning

The western and central portions of the site are zoned ‘Residential’ (R) - “to provide for residential development and for associated support development, which will ensure the protection of existing residential amenity and will contribute to sustainable residential neighbourhoods”.

The eastern portion of the site, at the Claude Toft Park end zoned ‘Recreational and Amenity’ (RA) - “to provide for and protect recreational uses, open space, amenity uses and natural heritage”.

The plots along this side of Salthill Road upper generally follow this pattern. The zoning of the lower (south-western) end of Salthill Road Upper, towards its junction with Seapoint Promenade, reflect the commercial uses in this area.

6.2.2 Plot ratio, density, and site development standards

Section 11.7 of the plan indicates that on residential zoned land and lands directly adjoining Claude Toft Park in Salthill that the a maximum plot ratio figure of 0.46:1 may be relaxed only where the other residential amenity standards have been complied with and where the development is of a scale and height appropriate to its high profile setting.

Section 11.3 of the said plan sets out the general development standards and guidelines for residential developments.

Car parking is to be provided at a rate of 1 space per dwelling and 1 grouped visitor space per 3 dwellings

6.2.3 Amenity

Section 4.2 of the said plan states that: “it is the policy of the Council to preserve existing public rights of way for the common good. Where in the interests of proper planning and sustainable development, the extinguishment of an existing right of way becomes expedient, the Council may require the provision of a suitable alternative. The Council will seek to create new rights

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 24 of way where necessary for pedestrian convenience or amenity reasons and also to enhance existing public rights of ways, where appropriate”.

Table 11.2 of the plan, referred to by the planning officer, gives indicative

Examples of Recreational Facilities for Di fferent Sizes of Residential

Developments as follows:

Number of Residential Units Examples of Recreational Facilities

0-10 • No requirement

11-20 • Seating • Barbecue • Picnic Table

21-50 • Play Equipment • Kick About Area • Formal Garden

51-100 • Skateboard Facility • Bowling Green • Basketball Court

100+ • Play Ground • Playing Pitch • Formal Park

7.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

The 3rd party appeal was submitted by James Cunningham with an address of 230 Upper Salthill,

Number 230 is a property approximately 150m to the southwest, on the opposite side of this road. It is located facing the roundabout at the junction of Salthill Road Upper) and Seapoint Parade, and is a commercial premises.

The main grounds of this appeal can be summarised as follows:

7.1 Mr Cunningham asserts that he has a legal entitlement to a right of way stretching from Salthill Upper (Kingshill) to the seafront (now Claude Toft Park) which passes between the subject site and a plot of land he owns to the north of the subject site.

7.2 This plot of land and the asserted right of way is shown on an attached map. The land is located in the middle of the plot 115/117 Salthill

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 15 of 24 Upper. To the front of this plot, facing Salthill Upper, is a pair of semi- detached houses, where as to the rear, facing the seafront, is a detached house [No. 113 (‘Wavecrest’), Mr Smyth’s house]. To the south is the subject site and to the north is a block of apartments.

7.3 Legal documents relating to this asserted right of way are enclosed. The appellant refutes any claim that this matter has been resolved legally. The appellant makes additional assertions regarding the appellant’s title to the lands in question. The appeal presents a chronology of this lane’s usage from 100 years ago to the present day.

7.4 The City Development Plan supports the protection of rights or way (Section 4.3, page 42 regarding Public Rights of Way).

7.5 The appellant asserts that the previous application [PL61.241260] was refused on several grounds including issues relating to this right of way 3. Refers to Section 9.5.1 of the previous ABP inspector’s report on this matter.

7.6 Asserts that the applicant has attempted to obstruct this right of way by actions to date.

7.7 Refers to a nearby right of way at Grattan holiday apartments which was secured through the planning process.

7.8 The proposed development would exacerbate damage in the event of flooding.

8.0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

8.1 Planning Authority

The planning authority have not responded to the matters raised in the appeal.

8.2 First Party Response to Third Party Appeal

A response submitted on behalf of the applicant counters the grounds of the appeal and again disputes the existence of a right of way across the applicant’s lands to Mr Cunningham’s lands. Asserts that these matters are not appropriate to the planning process. A letter from Callan Tansey Solicitors further discusses these matters and asserts that the right of way was in favour of Nos 119 (Wavecrest) and 121, which now form part of the subject site.

The submission asserts that Mr Cunningham has a long established means of access via a private road beside a block of apartments formerly known as the Galway Bay Hotel.

3 This is factually incorrect. These matters were not contained in the reasons for refusal. See section 5.0 of this report.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 16 of 24 9.0 OBSERVERS

One observation has been submitted from Mr Smyth. The main issues raised in these observations are reflected in the submissions summarised in section 3.4 above.

10.0 ASSESSMENT

Having inspected the site and reviewed the file documents, I consider that the issues raised by this appeal can be assessed under the following broad headings: • Principle of Development • Standard of residential development • Car Park • Legal issues • Desirability of providing a route through the site • Interface with public park

10.1 Principle of Development

10.1.1 The site is zoned - predominantly, and in the areas subject to the current application – ‘Residential’. As such, both main aspects of the scheme, a residential car park and two new apartments are consistent with that zoning objective. The proposed development is therefore acceptable in principle.

10.1.2 It is notable that many of the plots between Salthill Road Upper and Quincentennial Drive have been redeveloped over the last 2 decades or so, with multi-unit residential buildings having been constructed on the Quincentennial Drive frontage to compliment existing or redeveloped buildings at the Salthill Road Frontage. It is this pattern of development that was originally intended for this site, but due to legal proceedings it did not progress when economic factors were favourable.

10.1.3 To replace a previously-permitted (but since expired) residential block with a surface car park could reasonably be considered as a sub-optimal use of the site. However, this is not a reason in itself to refuse permission. The scheme must be assessed on its merits. It is notable that there is nothing within the scheme that would preclude or prejudice a revisiting of this matter at a later date.

10.1.4 I note that Block A of the originally-permitted scheme has been constructed, sold/let, and occupied without the developer having provided any car parking or any open space aside from balconies.

10.1.5 The proposed elevational amendments for retention are minor and are acceptable

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 17 of 24 10.2 Standard of residential development

10.2.1 The extant permissions on this site depict the areas now proposed for apartments as essentially ground/fill or a void, with additional lower storeys to the rear of the building due to the resolution of the site’s topography. See Table 1 above. A subsequent application to (inter alia) use this area for storage was refused due to wider issues of amenity not having been addressed.

10.2.2 The current proposal is to lay out these two ‘shell’ units as apartments, roughly as per the 2 x 2-bed units above, but as 1-bed units. Each would be 56m 2. I have some concerns regarding the level of residential amenity that would be available to the occupants of these apartments for the following reasons:

• There is a large mound behind retaining walls to the front of these units. The levels are not accurately depicted in the drawings submitted with the application. While some of this mound is proposed to be removed on foot of the further information submission, most would remain, and would be the only outlook for these units.

• Aside from a small kitchen window in Apt B, these units would be entirely single aspect, and northwest facing. The DoECLG Guidelines ‘Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments’ require that for single aspect apartments ‘north-facing units should be excluded’.

• The floor-to-ceiling heights are not clear. The submitted drawings show the finished floor level as being the same as the external ground level, but the lintels to the openings evident on site would appear to indicate that the floor level internally might be lower, and/or that the floor to ceiling height may be low.

10.2.3 There are no standards for apartment sizes or room sizes in the City Development Plan. The applicant and the planning authority rely instead on comparisons with the DoEHLG’s 2007 guidelines “Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments’ – Guidelines for Planning Authorities”, and specifically the figures given in its appendix. Such a reliance is, in my opinion, a misreading of the guidelines’ intentions, as set out in Section 2.3, where it states that there are different housing needs in different areas, and that planning authorities should therefore consider the feasibility of specifying, either in development plans and/or local area plans, target average floor areas to be achieved, with the ‘minimum’ figures being essentially a ‘catch all’, below which the ‘bell curve’ would not extend. The use of the suggested minimum areas as the ‘de facto’ target policy sets the bar lower than envisaged by the guidelines themselves.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 18 of 24 10.2.4 Notwithstanding the above, the proposed units, at 56m 2 are compliant with the minimum 45m 2 figure set out in the guidelines. Furthermore, these units would offer more floor area per person/bedspace than the 2-bedroom units above, which would appear to be the same size.

10.2.5 Given the inherent issues of low residential amenity faced in this location, particularly on the issue of daylight/sunlight, I consider it prudent that if permission is granted, that a condition require that these two units be amalgamated into a single unit, to provide for one unit of reasonable quality rather than two of impeded quality. This 112m 2 unit would be suitable for a generous 2-bed unit or even a 3- bed unit (90m 2 minimum requirement in DoECLG Guidelines).

10.2.6 Table 11.2 of the City Development Plan requires certain elements to be incorporated into open space, depending on the number of units within the scheme. As things stand (9 units) or if the two proposed units are amalgamated (10 units), there would be no specific requirement. If the two units are permitted as proposed (11 units), a requirement for Seating, Barbecue, and a Picnic Table would accrue. These are however suggestions. I note that the planning authority’s further information request addressed this mater, but the applicant did not address it with any measures. The planning authority’s condition number 5 addresses this issue by way of a ‘compliance’ condition. Around 400-450m 2 of private open space is shown between Block A and car park, which would be compliant with development plan policy

10.2.7 On the issue of plot ratio, I note that the subject proposal would push the scheme above the indicative value given in the development plan. This is acknowledged by the applicant. Section 11.7 of the plan envisages a relaxation where other residential amenity standards have been complied with and where the development is of a scale and height appropriate to its setting. This policy would appear to envisage application of these standards only to schemes that have an inappropriate height and substandard residential amenity, which appears unusual. Nevertheless I note the plot ratio on surrounding sites, as presented by the applicant (see section 2.8 above), which are significantly in excess of that currently proposed, and indeed the density previously permitted on this site. As such, I do not consider the scheme to be in any way deficient on this issue.

10.3 Car Park

10.3.1 In principle, the surface car park is an acceptable land use and an appropriate response to the requirements of the existing/proposed Block A. In numerical terms, the development plan requires 15 spaces on the basis of one per unit and one visitor space per 3 units. 17 spaces are proposed. I consider this to be within the boundaries of what could be considered an acceptable response to development plan requirements and the site’s context.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 19 of 24 10.3.2 I note that a small external bike rack is proposed within the scheme. The Developmetn Plan which requires just one cycle parking space for every 20 car parking spaces. As such, there would be no requirment for cycle parking in this instance. However, I note that Section 3.9 of the DoEHLG’s guidelines refers to the need for adequate, secure, bicycle parking. On balance, I consider the applicant’s proposed approach to be acceptable on this issue.

10.4 Legal issues

10.4.1 I note the assertions and counter-assertions made by the appeal parties in respect of rights of way or access that may or may not be applicable to this property. I see no latitude to diverge from the position taken by the planning authority and by the previous board inspector under PL61.241260; that such legal matters do not lie within the board’s sphere of jurisdiction.

10.4.2 Section 34(13) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, states that a person shall not be entitled solely by reason of a grant of permission under that section of the Act to carry out a development. Indeed, this scenario has applied previously on this very site in respect of the tin sheds, as documented on file.

10.4.3 I note that Number 113 (Mr Smyth – observer) appears to have access to a long narrow pedestrian route extending northwest from the northern corner of his house’s curtilage, but this appears to be partially grown over and not likely in regular use. He also would appear to have access via the grounds of the apartment scheme to his north. He does not currently have access via the subject site, and that situation would continue under the proposed layout.

10.4.4 The lands of Mr Cunningham (appellant) to the northwest of Mr Smyth’s lands are currently ‘landlocked’ as described on the appeal file. This would contribute to be the case under the proposed layout.

10.4.5 It is worth noting that, aside from the bin stores and cycle rack, there is no physical element within the scheme, nor aspect of the layout, that would lessen the implementability of access to the 3 rd party lands, were it to be the case that this were an ultimate requirement on foot of legal proceedings. As a precautionary measure, I recommend that a condition of permission require that the bins and bike rack be relocated to the opposite site boundary.

10.5 Desirability of providing a route through the site

10.5.1 There is no evidence to suggest that there is a public right of way through the site. As such, there is no right of way to protect. However, I do note Section 4.2 of the plan which does “seek to create new rights of way where necessary for pedestrian convenience or amenity reasons and also to enhance existing public rights of ways, where appropriate”.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 20 of 24 10.5.2 I note the 3 rd party’s reference to a right of way at Grattan Holiday Apartments to the northwest. There is no access between Salthill Road Upper (the area’s main spine) and Seapoint Promenade (the area’s main amenity) between this laneway and the junction between the two roads to the southwest.

10.5.3 I note that the further information drawings indicate a pathway along the site’s northern boundary, albeit with an ambiguously titled ‘unlocked pedestrian pass gate’ at its eastern end.

10.5.4 I note condition 6 of 06/1031 wich required that “the existing right-of- way shall remain open for general use of the public. Full details regarding surfacing and lighting shall be submitted for the written agreement of the Planning Authority before the commencement of development”.

10.5.5 On balance, I do not consider it appropriate to add any specific additional requirements on this issue by way of condition. I propsed to clarify by conditon that the conditions of previous permisions apply.

10.6 Interface with Public Park

10.6.1 It is not clear as to the extent to which the planning authority envisages incorporating the ‘RA’ zoned lands to the east of the site within the functional area of Claude Toft Park or to extend Quincentennial Drive; to link up the final section of the two arms. It may be the intention to purchase these lands, take them in charge, or simply to have them as a visual buffer.

10.6.2 In any event, I consider it prudent to require that no structure or fencing be erected east of the R/RA interface, in order that this permission does not prejudice matters in this regard

11.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Based on the above, I recommend that permission be granted. The development is acceptable in principle, and the legal issues raised are not germane to this forum. The scheme is largely compliant with policy requirements, although the two apartments would be quite substandard in regard to access to daylight and sunlight. To address this matter, the two units should be amalgamated into a single unit.

12.0 REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

Having regard to the provisions of the current development plan for the area, the relationship to adjoining properties, and the prevailing character of the area, it is considered that the proposed development would not be unduly injurious to the residential amenities or visual amenities of the area, and

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 21 of 24 would result in a scheme of good residential quality. The proposed development would, therefore, be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Conditions

1. The development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the plans and particulars lodged with the application, as amended by the further plans and particulars submitted the 1 st day of January 2014 except as may otherwise be required in order to comply with the following conditions. Where such conditions require points of detail to be agreed with the planning authority, these matters shall be the subject of written agreement and shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed particulars.

Reason: In the interest of clarity.

2. Apart from any departures specifically authorised by this permission, the development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permission granted under reg. ref. no. 06/1031, and any agreements entered into thereunder.

Reason: In the interest of clarity and to ensure that the overall development is carried out in accordance with the previous permission(s).

3. The proposed development shall be amended as follows: a) The two proposed apartments ‘A’ and ‘B’ shall be amalgamated into a single two or three bedroom unit. Access to the patio to the front shall be provided from a room other than a bedroom. b) The bin store and cycle parking shall be relocated to the south-western boundary, directly opposite the location proposed. The cycle parking area shall be covered. Revised drawings showing compliance with these requirements shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interests achieving an acceptable standard of residential amenity, and to result in a layout that does not prejudice developments in or adjacent to the subject site.

4. The site shall be landscaped in accordance with details which shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and visual amenity.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 22 of 24 5. Site development and building works shall be carried only out between the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, between 09.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays and not at all on Sundays and public holidays. Deviation from these times will only be allowed in exceptional circumstances where prior written approval has been received from the planning authority.

Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of property in the vicinity.

6. No structure or fencing above 0.2m high may be constructed or placed on the southeast side of the notional line dividing the ‘R’ zoned lands from the ‘RA’ zoned lands.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and in furtherance of the amenity objectives for the area.

7. The car parking spaces provided within the development shall be reserved for the exclusive use of the residential occupiers of the development. The car parking spaces shall be adequately delineated.

Reason: In the interests of traffic safety and residential amenity.

8. Water supply and drainage arrangements, including the disposal of surface water, shall comply with the requirements of the planning authority for such works. Surface water from the site shall not be permitted to drain onto the adjoining public road.

Reason: To ensure adequate servicing of the development, to prevent pollution, and in the interests of traffic safety.

9. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution in respect of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting development in the area of the planning authority that is provided or intended to be provided by or on behalf of the authority in accordance with the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The contribution shall be paid prior to the commencement of development or in such phased payments as the planning authority may facilitate and shall be subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the Scheme at the time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the Scheme shall be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of such agreement, the matter shall be referred to the Board to determine the proper application of the terms of the Scheme.

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 23 of 24 Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000 that a condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme made under section 48 of the Act be applied to the permission.

10. Prior to commencement of development, the developer shall lodge with the planning authority a cash deposit, a bond of an insurance company, or other security to secure the provision and satisfactory completion of roads, footpaths, watermains, drains, open space and other services required in connection with the development, coupled with an agreement empowering the local authority to apply such security or part thereof to the satisfactory completion of any part of the development. The form and amount of the security shall be as agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of agreement, shall be referred to An Bord Pleanála for determination.

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory completion of the development.

______G. Ryan Planning Inspector 27 th June 2014

PL61.243215 An Bord Pleanála Page 24 of 24