An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

PL07.240168

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT: • Retention of use of site as a compound and loading bay for the storage and distribution of limestone blocks. • Retention and improvement of field access to form commercial access serving compound for retention.

LOCATION: Curragh, Clonmacowen By, Aughrim, County .

PLANNING APPLICATION

Planning Authority (P.A.): Galway County Council

P.A. Reg. Ref.: 11/984

Applicants: Brendan Dervan & Donal McLoughlin

Application Type: Permission

P.A. Decision: Grant permission subject to conditions

PLANNING APPEAL

Appellant: An Taisce

Type of Appeal: 3rd party – v – grant

Site Inspection: 8 May 2012

Appendices: Photographs and Key Map; Site Location Sketch.

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 14

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 This is a third party appeal against the decision of the Planning Authority, Galway County Council, to grant permission subject to conditions for retention of a “storage compound” in a rural area adjoining the main -Aughrim Road (old N6), a short distance east of Aughrim.

1.2 There is a planning history to the site, associated initially with the construction of the M6 Motorway in the mid/late 2000’s. The history is set out in the relevant section (3.0) of my report, below.

1.3 The current planning application is stated to have been the subject of a formal pre- application consultation with Planning Authority personnel in May 2011.

1.4 During the course of processing the current planning application, there was an extension of time confirmed for the making of a decision (confirmed in September 2011: decision postponed to January 2012). During the time extension period there was unsolicited further information submitted to the Planning Authority (November 2011). The planning application details and this further information are summarised in the relevant section (4.0) of my report, below.

1.5 A request for an oral hearing in this case was made by the applicants in their response to the submitted appeal. The Board directed in April 2012 that an oral hearing should not be held.

1.6 I have read the file and visited the site and its environs and can now report as set down below.

2.0 SITE CONTEXT AND DESCRIPTION

2.1 Site Location

2.1.1 The site is located in a rural area between Ballinasloe to the east and Aughrim to the west. Access is existing/proposed direct to/from the R446 Regional Route (former N6 main -Galway Road). This road forms part of the northern boundary of the site, adjacent to a recorded monument which lies between the road and the remainder of the northern site boundary. The site is otherwise generally surrounded by fields in active agricultural use.

2.1.2 Other notable features of the wider area include the M6 motorway to the south, also to the west where it is crossed by an over-bridge forming part of the R446 road. Sketch map and photographs attached herewith to my report help to illustrate the context. The site is marked out in an extensive but low key visitor presentation, accessible via the R446 west of the M6 over-bridge. To the east the R446 includes a sharp bend in the road adjoining the recorded monument, beyond (east of) which there is a crossroads. This section of the road is characterised by a solid white line marking in the middle of the road (including the appeal site frontage) and certain road hazard warning signs.

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 14

2.1.3 Although the R446 is a regional route, a 100kph speed limit applies in this vicinity. The site access proposed for retention/improvement is almost directly facing a minor road junction on the northern side of the R446. Another pre-existing gated field access to the site is located a short distance east of this location (see photographs), also almost directly facing into the minor road junction.

2.2 Site Description

2.2.1 The site itself comprises excavated land defined on its eastern and southern boundaries by mature hedgerow fencing. To the west it is open to the remainder of the landholding indicated in submitted plans (“blue-lined” area on submitted Site Plan). To the north there is wire reinforced timber fencing and a field gate adjoining the public road. The boundary with the adjoining recorded monument is defined by post and wire fencing and a gate.

2.2.2 Parts of the site are covered with groups of the limestone blocks referred to in the application. The cut stone blocks observed were of variable size up to a maximum of less than 1 cubic metre. Most of the blocks appear to be numbered (see photographs).

3.0 PLANNING HISTORY

3.1 The planning reports for the Planning Authority essentially refer to one history case, which was a withdrawn application (2008) for development consisting of a borrow pit for the procurement of fill on lands and including topsoil and overburden storage area and import of inert cut and fill materials and site restoration to agricultural lands. It is understood this application was withdrawn in the context of a realisation by the land owners that the development then proposed, could be undertaken as “exempted development”.

3.2 This approach was confirmed under the aegis of Galway County ED09/02, in respect of which certain details have been provided now to An Bord Pleanála. In essence an exemption to use the land as a borrow pit was granted in March 2009 on lands including the current appeal site (see site location map, scale 1:2500, dated January 2009 on file ED09/02). Reference is made in the planning report in that ED case to Schedule 2 Part 1 Class 16 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. The proposal as then described was “proposed temporary borrow pit for extraction of aggregates”. Submitted drawings indicate a stated area of 3.92 hectares to be excavated as a borrow pit, and the direction of excavation (west to east) then proposed. An exclusion zone relating to the recorded monument within the relevant lands was also noted on the site layout plan.

3.3 Other history information contained within the planning reports on the current file states that the subject lands are currently the subject matter of an enforcement case with Galway County Council under Ref. Nos. EN10/187 and EN09/118.

3.4 It may be noted that Section 18 of the currently submitted planning application form confirms as follows:

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 14

“The site was originally used for agricultural use. The overburden was removed from the site and used in the construction of the M6 motorway under exemption. The site was never used for dumping”.

4.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISION

4.1 Proposed Development

4.1.1 The proposed development is described in the public notices as:

(a) Retention of use of site as a compound and loading bay for the storage and distribution of limestone blocks, and (b) Permission sought for the retention of and improvement to an existing field access to form a commercial access serving a compound for limestone blocks and loading area.

NB. It may be noted that Section 9 of the submitted planning application form contains an anomaly vis-á-vis the public notices specifically the application form refers in (b) to “ relocation ” as distinct from “retention” of field access. However it may be noted also that the Planning Authority Decision in the case describes the subject development as in the case of the relevant public notices i.e. permission sought for retention and improvement of access.

4.1.2 Site area is stated to be 3.37 hectares.

4.1.3 The planning application form and related documentation were accompanied by a covering letter (Raymond J. Kenny and Associates Ltd.). This letter includes points as set down below.

• There are 1,010 no. blocks from another site stored at Curragh (subject site) and no further additions are proposed. • Proposal to move 4-6 blocks per week until all have been removed, over a period of between 1½ and 2½ years. • On removal of blocks, the remaining and full reinstatement of the site will be carried out “… with the already approved reinstatement submission…” • A new commercial access is proposed to accommodate the current application “… and any other approved activity…” in a safe and orderly manner. • There will be no requirement for wastewater disposal on site. • The continued use of the site for the storage and distribution of limestone blocks is critical to the survival of the applicants’ stone business. • Applicants have secured an export market for their stone blocks.

4.2 Initial Assessment for Planning Authority

4.2.1 Initial assessment for the Planning Authority is set out in the Planning Report dated 2 September 2011. The report noted several third party objections to the proposed development; and is/was underpinned by reports prepared by the Area Engineer, the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltacht and the

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 14

(NRA). The Report also refers in some detail to a recommendation to refuse permission in the case 08/1231 (withdrawn application), as referred to in Section 3.0 of my report, above (Pages 4/5 of current Planning Authority Planning Report refer).

4.2.2 The Planning Report concluded with a recommendation to refuse permission for four reasons, which may be summarised:

• traffic hazard; • in the absence of justification for the development, it would detract from visual amenities, depreciate the value of properties and set an undesirable precedent; • adverse impact on archaeology, and • extension of unauthorised works, contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

4.3 Unsolicited Further Information

4.3.1 Following a time extension for decision granted by applicants (2 September 2011), there was unsolicited further information received by the Planning Authority on 22 and 27 November 2011. A letter forming part of the submission (Raymond J. Kenny and Associates) included various points relating to issues raised in the recommendation within the Planning Authority Planning Report. The submission drew attention to the absence of any “reinstatement” condition attached to the planning exemption certificate under ED09/02, and explained the reason for using the site as a temporary storage facility. It is stated that the current application is designed to legalise the temporary storage of the limestone blocks and the safe removal of same over the timeframe referred.

4.3.2 The letter was accompanied and/or followed by technical reports and maps relating to archaeology and road safety (received by Planning Authority on 22 and 27 November 2011), and subsequently followed by drawings relating to road safety and the interface between road safety/archaeological considerations (these drawings received 12 January 2012)

4.4 Final Assessment for Planning Authority

Following consideration of the further information received, a final Planning Report was prepared. This report appears to be unsigned and undated, but was underpinned by a Road Design technical report dated 2 December 2011; and it refers to a telephone consultation with DoAHG on 6 January 2012. The report makes no reference to material received by the Planning Authority on 12 January 2012, and a subsequent Road Design Report dated 13 January 2012, understood to take account of 12 January submission. The Planning Report recommended refusal of permission generally as recommended in the initial assessment of September 2011.

4.5 Management Direction

Subsequent to the final Planning Report, there was a Management Direction to grant permission subject to conditions. The Direction was underpinned by a memorandum dated 13 January 2012. The memo is a handwritten document. Although some words ______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 14

are slightly unclear to me, the gist of the Direction is that there are three main planning issues each of which is resolved by the submissions and/or reports on file and/or can be resolved by planning conditions. In essence a temporary permission is directed on the understanding that there really is no intention to establish a commercial use.

4.6 Planning Authority Decision

4.6.1 By order dated 13 January 2012 the Planning Authority decided to grant permission subject to eight conditions. There are/were no reasons or considerations stated in the Order.

4.6.2 In the context of the submitted appeal and other important planning considerations, I draw the attention of the Board to the following conditions proposed by the Planning Authority.

condition no. 2: time limit imposed (June 2013), in the interest of clarity.

condition no. 3: archaeological supervision required.

condition no. 4: 220 metres site distance request in each direction, works to include lowering of ground level.

condition no. 5: reinstatement to be agreed with the Planning Authority and completed by deadline (June 2013).

5.0 APPEAL AND CORRESPONDENCE

5.1 The appeal was submitted by An Taisce by letter dated 8 February 2012.

5.2 The grounds of appeal may be summarised:

• adverse impact on the setting of an archaeological monument, and conflict with Galway County plan provisions HL20; HL21 and HL25; • traffic hazard arising from impact on “Class II Controlled Road” in the Galway County Plan; • adverse impact on recorded monument would arise from proposed traffic hazard mitigation; • contravention of mitigation conditions attached to the EIA for the M6 Motorway approved by An Bord Pleanála; • exacerbation of unauthorised development including the demolition of a habitable house; • Management Direction does not resolve planning issues raised in technical submissions and reports.

5.3 An Taisce effectively recommends refusal in the case.

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 14

5.4 Applicants’ Response to Appeal

5.4.1 The applicants responded to the appeal through their consultant Raymond J. Kenny and Associates in and under cover of a letter dated 27 February 2012. The letter dwells at length on the site history since the preparation of plans to use the lands for borrow pit activity c.2008. The thrust of the submission is to demonstrate that the applicants have not intentionally broken any rules, and to explain the business imperative of the applicants in the use of their lands for stone storage as now proposed for retention. Supporting documentation includes much of the documentation already provided with the planning application (including unsolicited further information then received). In addition there is some additional documentation, notably:

• a report dated 1 March 2012 prepared by Traffic Transport and Road Safety Associates (TTRSA) containing comments on the appeal and certain observations contained in the final Planning Report prepared for the Planning Authority in the case; • copy correspondence of January 2012 between the agent for the applicants and the Enforcement Section of the Planning Authority.

5.4.2 It is suggested also in the main letter of submission that the fears of the authors of 9 no. submissions/objections to the Planning Authority in connection with the proposed development, have now been allayed, and that the appellant is ignoring the professional reports and audits undertaken at the behest of the developer.

5.4.3 A request was made for an oral hearing, accompanying the substantive appeal response. This matter was dealt with by Board Direction dated 30 April 2012.

5.5 Planning Authority Response to Appeal

The Planning Authority has not responded to the issues raised in the submitted appeal.

5.6 Other Correspondence

There have not been other substantive planning submissions made to An Bord Pleanála in the course of the appeal. At planning application stage there were several third party submissions made to the Planning Authority. These have been copied to the current appeal file. The issues raised are well summarised in the planning reports for the Planning Authority at planning application stage. I shall address any issues raised in these submissions (beyond those raised in the current appeal), as appropriate in the Assessment section of my report (7.0), below.

6.0 OFFICIAL POLICY

Relevant extracts from the County Development Plan are highlighted in an appendix attached herewith to my report.

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 14

7.0 ASSESSMENT

7.1 Principle of Development

7.1.1 The site is located in a rural area where the needs of agriculture and the protection of rural amenities take precedence over other demands. This is reflected generally in the provisions of the statutory development plan for the area. The stone storage/distribution proposal is not location specific. The only justification put forward is that the landowners have had a logistical storage problem in their stone business operation, such that their own lands including the subject site have been the only available site for storage. Such an argument could be advanced in many business situations. However such a laissez-faire approach to development was effectively outlawed in Ireland by the introduction of planning law as we know it some two generations ago. I do not consider there can be any presumption in favour of granting permission in this case.

7.1.2 In their submission the applicants have dwelt at length on the short history of the site, in particular its use as a borrow pit for aggregate used in the construction of the now operational M6 Motorway. A typical engineering definition of “borrow pit” is “where ground material is taken for earthworks” (Penguin New Dictionary of Civil Engineering). However planning law regulates the extent to which ground material can be dug to provide fill elsewhere. In relation to the current appeal site the applicants refer to “exemption granted” without conditions for the extraction of aggregate from their lands, and go on to imply that they are making a charitable gesture to the public interest by engaging with the Planning Authority in the matter of rehabilitation of the lands. The reality is that the Planning Authority confirmed the exemption under ED09/02, following a planning report which cited Schedule 2, Part 1, Class 16 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. I am surprised at that approach then taken by the Planning Authority. However, notwithstanding this view, and notwithstanding any amendments there have been to regulations since 2001, the attention of the Board is drawn to the full text of Class 16, wherein certain works are facilitated subject to conditions and limitations. A key condition in relation to Class 16 is that the relevant land shall be reinstated at the expiration of the relevant temporary period of construction works to which the exemption relates. I consider therefore that the exemption status of earlier works undertaken to be largely irrelevant in relation to the current appeal. Retention is now sought to regularise unauthorised developments unrelated to the scope of works facilitated under exempted development regulations. The current appeal case may be examined on its merits as if it had been presented to the Planning Authority or An Bord Pleanála in the first instance prior to any development having been undertaken. Please also note any observations in section 7.7 of my report, below.

7.1.3 I shall now assess the appeal by reference mainly to the other issues raised in the submitted appeal, followed by reference to other issues of relevance.

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 14

7.2 Review of Issues

I consider appeal issues may best be addressed by reference to the following headings:

• Preliminary matters • Conflict with Development Plan • Archaeological landscape impact • Traffic hazard • Contravention of planning condition • Other issues

7.3 Preliminary Matters

7.3.1 In Section 4.0 of my report, above, I have drawn attention to an anomaly in the text of public notices vis-á-vis the description of development in the planning application form. However, as the description of the development noted by the Planning Authority in its Decision Order is consistent with the description in the public notices, I do not consider any clarifying action is required by An Bord Pleanála. Any decision of the Board should refer to the description of development as per the public notices.

7.3.2 The applicants have stated on file that their intention is to remove all of the limestone blocks off the site over a period of not more than 2½ years, and that no new materials are to be brought on site for storage/distribution. The applicants contend that the simple choice is whether to remove the blocks by way of an existing field access or by way of another access point (Item (b) in public notice) at a less hazardous location.

7.3.3 Regarding this issue I must observe in the first instance that it should be wholly unnecessary for any permission to be granted in respect of Item (a) in the application, to achieve the stated objective of the applicants. Quite simply it should be possible in my view for the applicants to remove the blocks as soon as possible as part of the land reinstatement required to complete the exempted development works in accordance with law, under the aegis of the UD Enforcement Notice(s) issued by the Planning Authority, with details to be agreed with the Enforcement Section who would have experience in these matters. Regarding Item (b), I shall address this in the Traffic Hazard section of my report, below.

7.4 Conflict with Development Plan

7.4.1 In the submitted appeal An Taisce makes specific reference to the provisions HL20, HL21 and HL25 in the County Development Plan. I have studied the text of these sections of the County Plan. I agree that the proposed development would be at variance with objectives HL20 and HL21. Reference to Policy HL25 is also well founded.

7.4.2 The other issue which arises vis-á-vis the Development Plan is the status of the R446 road serving the site, onto which direct access is proposed. This road is a former national route, but as a regional route in modern times it is classed in the County Plan as “Class II” control with a speed limit of 100kph. As such it should be regarded as akin to the national road network, and due cognisance should be taken of the NRA ______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 14

submission on the current appeal file. In essence I consider the case for the creation of a commercial access onto this busy road, for a non-site specific use, would need to be a compelling one, failing which there would be serious conflict with the intentions of the Development Plan.

7.5 Archaeology

7.5.1 The appeal submits under this heading quite simply that the proposed development is inappropriate because of its impact on the setting of an archaeological monument. The appeal goes on to refer in this regard to specific provisions in the County Development Plan which seek amongst other things to protect the landscape settings of monuments.

7.5.2 In response to the appeal the applicants have submitted substantive information on investigations undertaken previously in the field area now excavated and overlain by limestone blocks and related materials and apparatus. The applicants argue that the appellant has ignored this investigative and other professional work. In my view the submitted material is largely irrelevant to the appeal submission relating to landscape setting.

7.5.3 The reality is that the relevant historic field monument (GA087-060, double ditched earthwork monument) stands relatively isolated in the local environment: truncated on one side (north/west) by road building in the past, and on the other side (south) standing starkly above the lowered ground of the field of which – for some centuries – it would have formed part. Only to the east is there some semblance of the evolved historic landscape of the area. I consider the use of the appeal site for commercial development as proposed would adversely affect the landscape setting of a recorded field monument and would contravene the County Development Plan. Moreover I draw the attention of the Board to the formal submission on file from DoAHG, at planning application stage, which seeks the restoration of the site to agricultural land.

7.5.4 Regarding the impact of proposed road safety mitigation design to maximise sight lines in an easterly direction, I agree with the appeal submission that the sight lines required by the decision of the Planning Authority would adversely affect the setting of the monument. The Board may note that the 2011 refusal recommendation of the Road Design section was based on the assumption of 160 metre sight lines. The subsequent (January 2012) report of the same Road Design engineer was based on a proposal for 215 metre sight lines. Either proposal, but in particular the latter proposal ostensibly deemed acceptable to the Road Design section of the Planning Authority, would increase the starkness of the interface of the monument with the public road, and thereby adversely further affect the historic setting of the monument. In the context presented, road safety mitigation can only be a secondary consideration to the principle of the development and the safeguarding of amenities, which I have already addressed in sections of my report, above.

7.6 Traffic Hazard

7.6.1 The site access proposed is directly to a “Class II” controlled road per the Development Plan. There is a submission from the NRA on file stating its requirement that the Planning Authority take account of NRA guidance on frontage ______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 10 of 14

development. The proposed development would in my view conflict with the NRA advice and the provisions of the Development Plan.

7.6.2 The site frontage is characterised by a continuous double white line hazard marking in the centre of the road, continuing in an easterly direction around a sweeping bend in the direction of a busy crossroads. There is also a minor road junction with the R446 on its northern side, facing the appeal site. This junction is located marginally west of the existing field access gate to the appeal site and marginally east of the access proposed under Item (b) in the current planning application and appeal.

7.6.3 Traffic hazard associated with existing field access, if used for heavy commercial vehicular movements, is not in dispute. Traffic hazard associated with the proposed access, as per the original planning application, is noted by the Road Design section, and embodied in the planning recommendations to refuse permission in the case. The increased sight line proposed prior to the Management Direction to grant permission would seriously injure the amenities of the area by reference to the landscape setting of the monument, and be at variance with the relevant amenity provisions of the Development Plan. Moreover, there do not appear to be plans to further realign the relevant road east of Aughrim. The Development Plan states an objective to realign the road west of Aughrim, while the ‘Class II’ control appears to apply to all sections of the former N6 within the county.

7.7 Contravention of Planning Condition

7.7.1 The submitted appeal refers to possible conflict with the terms and conditions of the development consent for the M6 Motorway granted by the Board in 2005. I have referred to documentation relating to this project on the relevant archive/public file. Certain extracts from the file are attached herewith as an appendix to my report, and I can make certain observations as set down below.

7.7.2 The field monument GA087-060 was noted in the Constraints Study (N6 – August 2000) as a Potential Significant Impact Site. However, at development consent stage the EIS did not include the relevant monument as one which would be directly or indirectly affected by the motorway scheme, apparently because of its location at a distance greater than 200 metres from the then chosen route. Accordingly the mitigation measures proposed to minimise environmental impact arising from the then proposed motorway scheme, did not extend to the particular monument adjoining the current appeal site. The specific reference (current appeal) to conflict with the M6 project archaeological mitigation does not therefore appear to be correct.

7.7.3 More generally I draw the attention of the Board to construction phase mitigation proposals associated with the M6 project, which included specifically:

• Measure No. 104: Reinstatement of land used for temporary construction purposes. • Measure No. 107: Planning permission required for borrow pits. • Measure No. 108: Fill material for construction to be sourced only from quarries in compliance with planning law.

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 11 of 14

In the context of the current appeal, while the subject development now before An Bord Pleanála is separate from the borrow pit activity precipitated by the M6 construction of some years ago, any grant of permission which could undermine the legal and/or environmental integrity of the M6 project, would be inappropriate. The Board may note also that, in response to questions at the oral hearing preceding the development consent given for the M6 Motorway, representatives for the applicants stated that the issue of archaeology was discussed at a meeting in the process of preparing the EIS in relation to quarrying; and further stated that quarries for road material should be located away from archaeological sites.

7.7.4 I accept the thrust of the submission for the appellant that there would be conflict with the spirit and expectations of EIA mitigation proposals embodied in M6 Motorway plans. The M6 is now operational. Its approval under the relevant consent procedure(s) was predicated on minimising adverse environmental impact. Granting permission for damaging and unnecessary follow-on commercial development, on the chosen site of earthworks found necessary for the development of the motorway scheme, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

7.8 Other Issues

The appeal refers briefly to other issues historically raised by residents. These issues were formally raised in submissions to the Planning Authority in connection with the currently proposed development. As such they are summarised in the planning reports prepared for the Planning Authority, on file. The main issues not specifically otherwise raised in the appeal may be summarised:

• dust and noise pollution; • unauthorised demolition of a habitable house; • compromise of Aughrim developing tourism base.

I shall comment briefly on the issues below.

7.8.1 Regarding dust and noise , I agree generally that unnecessary development of the type proposed would undermine the rural amenities of the area. Regarding the specifics of the development as detailed in the current appeal file, there would be limited number of vehicular movements envisaged in the removal of approximately 1,000 blocks, and consequently the limited loading time involved in preparing stone for export. Such should not seriously impair amenities. In the event of any permission being granted there should be standard dust/noise planning conditions attached; there should be no work permitted at unsocial hours; and the cutting of stone on site should be prohibited.

7.8.2 Regarding alleged habitable house demolition , there is no clear evidence. A photograph on file illustrates a house which is not clearly shown to be habitable. This is really an issue of planning enforcement and need not be a determining consideration relating to the current appeal.

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 12 of 14

7.8.3 Regarding the compromise of the Aughrim tourism base , I draw the attention of the Board to the effect of segregation of the battlefield area from the subject site and its environs by the physical feature of the M6 Motorway. Looking westward from the M6 overbridge (over the R446) the landscape contains the battlefield area. Looking eastward there is the existing scar of the appeal site in the environment. These two sub-areas of the local landscape are not visible one from the other. Accordingly, notwithstanding historic ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) and Exchequer funding in the presentation of the Aughrim battlefield site (in situ and in a purpose built visitor centre), I do not consider there to be a direct impact. More indirectly, the R446 is the main approach route to Aughrim from the east: as such any further impairment of the archaeological landscape as envisaged in the current planning application, would be unwelcome and should be discouraged. Moreover the reinstatement of the site as part of the agricultural landscape, as soon as possible and as recommended by DoAHG should be regarded as a priority, in the interest of visual amenity.

8.0 CONCLUSION

8.1 I do not consider the Management Direction, underpinning the decision of the Planning Authority in the current appeal case, presents compelling reasons for granting permission in this case. Applicants have sought permission for a commercial use and a commercial access. The Management submission that the proposal would not be a commercial development, cannot be reconciled with the development as publicly advertised and assessed in planning reports. Arguably the decision to grant permission subject to temporary limitation, gives to the applicants with one hand and takes away with the other. Official planning guidance advises against such practices by planning authorities.

8.2 If it appears to the Board that a permission for Item (b) would be appropriate or necessary in order to expedite the removal of materials and machinery from the appeal site to facilitate reinstatement of land for agriculture, I would recommend in particular in any split decision granting permission for that element of the development that:

• road sight line improvements be omitted, in the interest of amenity, and • a traffic management plan be agreed with the Planning Authority, including the provision of all necessary road safety interventions including temporary speed limits pending completion of the stone removal and related programme of agricultural land reinstatement, • noise and dust mitigation measures (including prohibition on cutting of stone), and limitations on working hours, in the interest of amenity.

Please note other conditions proposed by the Planning Authority in the case.

9.0 RECOMMENDATION

Refuse permission for the following reasons and considerations.

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 13 of 14

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

1. The proposed development provides for commercial activity on unzoned lands in open countryside, served by a busy . In the absence of adequate planning justification for the proposed development, which is not location specific to the resources of the site, it is considered the proposed development of the type proposed would detract from the visual and rural amenities of the area and would seriously injure the amenities and depreciate the value of property in the vicinity, would set an undesirable precedent for similar developments in the rural area, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

2. It is the policy of the planning authority, as expressed in Policy HL25 of the Galway County Development Plan 2009-2015, to protect and preserve archaeological sites which have been identified subsequent to the publication of the Record of Monuments and Places. This and other polices underpin objectives of the said Plan including Objectives HL20 and HL21 which seek to conserve the integrity of existing archaeological monuments and their settings, and to prevent development detrimental to the character of an archaeological site or its setting. These provisions of the Development Plan are considered reasonable. It is considered that the proposed commercial development adjoining a recorded monument set in open countryside would detract from the landscape setting of the record monument Ref. GA087-060, by reason of the location, scale, nature and detailing of the proposed development. The proposed development would therefore seriously injure the amenities of the area and would contravene materially objectives of the development plan for the area.

3. The proposed development is located alongside and with direct access proposed to the R446 Regional Route which is identified in the Development Plan for the area as a ‘Class II’ controlled road and where a speed limit of 100kph applies. It is considered the proposed development, by itself or by the precedent which the grant of permission for it would set for other relevant development, would adversely affect the use of a major road by traffic. Moreover mitigation proposals made to overcome an existing deficiency in sight lines in an easterly direction, in plans submitted to the planning authority by way of unsolicited further information, would exacerbate the adverse impact of the proposed development on the landscape setting of a recorded monument and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

______Keith Sargeant Senior Planning Inspector

18 th July, 2012.

______PL07.240168 An Bord Pleanála Page 14 of 14