An Bord Pleanála
Inspector’s Report
Appeal Ref. No: PL08.239549
Proposed Development: Retain an ‘as constructed’ altered roof and a two storey granny flat, erect extensions comprising a rear family room, a side bay window and an extended porch and upgrade existing septic tank to a septic tank with an intermittent peat filter and a soil polishing filter all on an altered site.
Location: Fahamore, Castlegregory, Co Kerry.
Applicants: Michael O’Leary
Planning Authority Reg. Ref: 11/431
Planning Authority: Kerry County Council
P.A. Decision: Split Decision
Appeal Type: Third Party v Grant
Appellants: Patrick O’Connell
Observers: An Taisce
Date of Site Inspection: 14 th November 2011
Inspector: Hugh Mannion
PL 08.239549 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 9
1. SITE AND SURROUNDINGS
The site has a stated area of 0.23ha and is located at the northern end of the Magharee peninsula. The Magharee peninsula (itself an offshoot of the Dingle peninsula) stretches 7kms due north from Castlegregory village – itself about 20kms due west of Tralee Town. The peninsula is flat (the OS map indicates a maximum height at 33mOD), with few trees or shrubs and has long stretches of beach with low sand dunes. The peninsula has been subject to very significant housing development laid out without obvious pattern. A local level road runs north from Castlegregory as a spine along the peninsula and fractures into a number of narrow roads and culs de sac as it approaches and passes through Fahamore village.
The site is the last of a line of three sites created by the subdivision of an original field. There is a house fronting the public road, a further house in the middle and a third, the subject dwelling, at the north-eastern end of the original field. The house is served by an access/right of way along the north-western field boundary.
2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development (see revised public notice) comprises;
• Retain an integrated shed and granny flat at the eastern end of the permitted house and retain the amended roof profile on that house on a revised site, • Retain a garden shed on the south-western boundary of the site, i.e. on the boundary with middle site of these three, • Erect a family room to the rear, a bay window on the north-eastern elevation and a front porch, • Upgrade the septic tank to a septic tank with peat filter followed by a polishing filter.
3. HISTORY
The existing house on site was constructed on foot of a permission under reference number 96/2208 for a dormer bungalow of 279sqm.
4. PLANNING AUTHORITY DECISION
The planning authority decided to:
• grant permission for the retention of the house within revised site boundaries, a stand along garden shed and the up-graded foul effluent treatment system, • refuse permission for the granny flat • refuse permission for the family room extension to the rear, the side window and porch.
PL 08.239549 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 9
Following receipt of the further information the Environmental Section reviewed the information submitted and recommended a grant of permission with conditions.
5. THIRD PARTY APPEAL
The appeal relates only to the grant of permission for the retention of the house on revised boundaries and revised foul effluent disposal arrangements.
The grounds of appeal are as follows;
• There is a difference in height of 0.936m between the permitted roof height and the constructed roof height. Given the alterations to the house required by the removal of the granny flat the reduction of the roof height to the original permitted should not pose insurmountable difficulty.
• The additional height and acute angel required to make room for accommodation in the roof space creates significant visual intrusion for a number of vantage points. The Board should grant permission based on the originally permitted drawings under 96/2208.
• The proposed septic tank and polishing filter is undersized for the proposed development. The area is characterised by sandy soils and a high water table.
6. OBSERVATIONS
An Taisce made a submission setting out the following points;
• The site is located in an open, flat, scenic landscape without natural screening.
• The unauthorised elements add about 1m to its height which exacerbates its visual impact.
• Lowering the roof, omitting the granny flat and omitting the proposed family room would mitigate the scale and bulk of the proposal.
7. APPLICANT’S RESPONSE
The applicant responded to the appeal as follows;
• The applicant is a native of Fahamore and has lived, with his family, in this house since 1997. The applicant’s extended family live close by.
• The appeal is vexatious.
PL 08.239549 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 9 • The permission granted by the planning authority included the retention of the granny flat and only the use of the granny flat has been refused – the structure is permitted and should be integrated into the main house.
• The height of the existing house is not materially different from the permitted house (planning reg. no. 96/2208) since the drawings submitted with the original application did not give specific dimensions. The roof angle is 45 0 as against the permitted 35.5 0 or 36.5 0 shown in the permitted drawings. The house is constructed with fully hipped roofs rather than half hipped roofs. If a shed was constructed as permitted (under planning reg. no. 96/2208) the scale and bulk of the development would be similar to that existing.
• The reversion of the roof to its permitted design would be prohibitively expensive and is not a consideration here as it was only the use of the granny flat which was refused – there is no need to remove it. As the granny flat has been in existence more than 7 years it is statue barred from enforcement.
• The photographs submitted with the appeal are taken from perspectives which exacerbate the house’s visual impact.
• The PE design of the waste water treatment system is adequate to accommodate the anticipated number of occupants.
8. PLANNING AUTHORITY RESPONSE
The planning authority did not respond to the appeal.
9. FURTHER SUBMISSIONS
There were no further submissions.
10. PLANNING POLICY FRAMEWORK
The site is located in an area of secondary special amenity which are described in the Plan and sensitive landscapes which can accommodate a limited level of development. The level of development will depend on the degree to which it can be integrated into the landscape. The Plan inter alia , requires that any proposal must be designed and sited so as to ensure that it is not unduly obtrusive. The onus is, therefore, on any applicant to avoid obtrusive locations. Existing features including trees and hedgerows shall be retained to form a part of a comprehensive landscaping scheme.
Development will be regulated in accordance with table 3.7.11 which provides that housing will be acceptable in the case of family members of the landowner, the applicant can demonstrate a genuine local employment need or where the applicant’s family have lived in the area since January 1998.
PL 08.239549 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 9 11. ASSESSMENT
11.01 The following assessment is a de novo consideration of the application.
11.02 Altered Site Area
11.03 The application is to retain the house within revised site boundaries from those set out in the original outline application under reference 96/2208. The original site layout plan shows a site approximately 70m long by 30m wide. The revised site is about 75m long by about 31m wide. This revision will not impact negatively on the visual or residential amenity of the area. The site area marginally exceeds the minimum site area of 0.2ha for single houses set out at 13.5.2 of the County Development Plan.
11.04 Visual Amenity/Roof Height
11.05 The Development Plan in its designation of the area as being of secondary special amenity recognises the very open nature of the landscape on the Magharee peninsula and its relationship with the sea. This visual amenity has been undermined by the variety of house type and haphazard arrangement of housing on the peninsula but particularly in the vicinity of Fahamore village close to the northern tip of the peninsula.
11.06 Having said this I do not agree with the appeal or observation in so far as the existing roof of such a height or scale as to significantly detract from the visual amenity of the area, notwithstanding that it exceeds the permitted height by about 1m. The house is set well back from the road and shares the landscape with a number of other houses of various designs in a manner which ensures that it is not unduly prominent in this variety. Within this collection of housing and set back from the public road a reduction in roof height of 1m would be imperceptible and I consider unjustified when set against the impact such a reduction would have on the living accommodation available within the house.
11.07 Development Plan Policy/The Granny Flat
11.08 The Kerry County Development Plan at 13.6.1 establishes a policy that consideration may be given to the construction of a dwelling unit for an elderly parent provided that it is an integral part of the main structure and remains within the one ownership.
11.09 It may be noted from the application drawings (see especially 11-017 3100 submitted 24 May 2011) that there is internal communication between the granny flat and the main house. The issue therefore is the use. The applicant in his submission of further information (applicant’s letter received by the planning authority 27 th July 2011) makes the point that the granny flat is used by family members on holiday, is sometimes idle but will eventually be used by the applicant’s parents as a granny flat. I consider that this arrangement meets the criterion set out in the County Development Plan and that a condition relation to the use of the flat as a granny flat is appropriate in this case and will prevent its use as a separate residential unit.
PL 08.239549 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 9 11.10 The Rear Extension/Bay Window and Porch
11.11 The planning authority refused these elements because it considered that the scale and bulk of these elements would be incompatible with existing dwellings in the area and the proposal would therefore interfere with a landscape which it is necessary to preserve in accordance with Objective ZL 12-1 of the Plan.
11.12 I note that the Objective ZL 12-1 of the Plan is inaccurately quoted in the refusal reason and is as follows “it is an objective of the Council to protect the landscape of the county as a major economic asset as well as for its invaluable amenity and beauty”. Having regard to the pattern of development in the area and the variety of house types and designs I do not consider that the proposed porch and bay window will be inimical to that pattern nor do I consider that their visual impact will be perceptible on the overall landscape amenity value of the area.
11.13 The proposed extension is a different matter. This proposed family room/lounge will extend the gable end of the house by a further 4m for a total elevation length of 15.62m and perhaps provide further roof level accommodation. The amended roof will provide a very extensive additional slated area which will appreciably add to the overall scale and bulk of the building. Therefore the construction of the proposed family room/lounge extension will further increase the built volume on site relative to the site size. Despite the somewhat confused pattern of housing development in the area it is noteworthy that, generally, each site has an individual house on it and these sites are large enough to give some visual coherence to the overall pattern of development. This coherence is largely dependent on the ability of the site to accommodate the scale and bulk of each house; however with each accretion of built area that relationship is strained and in the present case the extended house would be unreasonable large for its site and therefore I recommend omitting this particular feature from any grant of permission.
11.14 The Garden shed
11.15 The garden shed has a floor area of 9m 2 and is located on the south-western boundary of the site. It is finished in natural stone and concrete tile. I do not consider that it causes any negative impact on the visual or residential amenity of the area.
11.16 Effluent Treatment
11.17 Initially the planning authority’s Environment Section sought further information in relation to the safe disposal of foul effluent on site. The applicant was asked to submit a revised site layout drawing showing all trial hole test locations and percolation test holes opened on site, measurements to these locations, wells, houses, water courses other significant features within 250m, proposed revised treatment system, contours/spot levels as necessary and proposed house with distances to boundaries.
11.18 The applicant submitted a drawing ‘Wastewater Treatment System’ number 11-017 3600 which provides the details necessary. It appears that a drawing showing wells, houses, water courses other significant features within 250m was not submitted but a drawings submitted on the 24 th Mat 2011 to the planning authority marks three
PL 08.239549 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 9 other effluent treatment systems in the vicinity of the proposed development. This is unlikely to be comprehensive in that there are other houses in the area which I assume have effluent treatment systems. Nonetheless there is a permitted house on site with an effluent treatment system serving it and the site fulfils the minimum site size requirement for single houses set out in the County Development Plan. The details submitted with the application and as further information make the case that the proposed treatment system is an improvement on the existing one on site.
11.19 The appeal makes the point that the proposed septic tank and polishing filter is undersized for the proposed development. The site characterisation form states that the maximum number of residents will be 10 while the system specification for the proposed proprietary system is up to 15 persons. I take the view that the aim of the EPA Guidance on Effluent Treatment Systems for Single Houses is to improve the quality of effluent entering the ground water in the interest of public health and to avoid water pollution. I note that a conventional septic tank system is being decommissioned in favour of a more sophisticated treatment system and I note the planning authority’s satisfaction with the details provided. In these circumstances and particularly where there is an existing permitted development I do not recommend refusal on this point.
12. RECOMMENDATION
Having considered the contents of the application, the decision of the planning authority, the provisions of the Development Plan, the grounds of appeal and the responses thereto, my site inspection and my assessment of the planning issues, I recommend that permission be granted for the reasons and considerations, and subject to the conditions, set out hereunder:
Reasons and Considerations
Having regard to the existing dwelling house and septic tank on site, to the pattern of residential development in the area and subject to the conditions set out below it is considered that the proposed development will not be prejudicial to public health or injure the residential or visual amenity of the area and will otherwise accord with the proper planning and 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 27 th July day of July 2011, 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.
PL 08.239549 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 9
Reason: In the interest of clarity.
2. The external finishes of the proposed extension (including roof tiles/slates) shall be the same as those of the existing dwelling in respect of colour and texture.
Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.
3. The granny flat extension to be retained shall be used solely for that purpose, and shall not be sold, let or otherwise transferred or conveyed, save as part of the dwelling and shall revert to use as part of the main dwelling on the cessation of such use.
Reason: To restrict the use of the extension in the interest of residential amenity.
4. (a) The treatment plant and polishing filter shall be located, constructed and maintained in accordance with the details submitted to the planning authority and in accordance with the requirements of the document “Wastewater Treatment Manual: Treatment Systems for Single Houses”, Environmental Protection Agency 2009. No system other than the type proposed in the submissions shall be installed unless agreed in writing with the planning authority.
(b) Certification by the system manufacturer that the system has been properly installed shall be submitted to the planning authority within four weeks of the installation of the system.
(c) A maintenance contract for the treatment system shall be entered into and paid in advance for a minimum period of five years from the first occupancy of the dwellinghouse and thereafter shall be kept in place at all times. Signed and dated copies of the contract shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the planning authority within four weeks of the installation.
(d) Surface water soakways shall be located such that the drainage from the dwelling and paved areas of the site shall be diverted away from the location of the polishing filter.
(e) Within three months of the first occupation of the dwelling, the developer shall submit a report from a suitably qualified person with professional indemnity insurance certifying that the proprietary effluent treatment system has been installed and commissioned in accordance with the approved details and is working in a satisfactory manner and that the polishing filter is constructed in accordance with the standards set out in the EPA document.
Reason: In the interest of public health.
PL 08.239549 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 9
5. The site shall be landscaped in accordance with details which shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with the planning authority. This scheme shall include time scale for implementation and any plants that die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, shall be replaced within the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority.
Reason: In order to assimilate the development into the rural landscape in the interest of visual amenity.
6. Surface water arsing within the site shall be disposed of within the site to the satisfaction of the planning authority.
Reason: In the interests of amenity and public health.
7. Notwithstanding the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and any statutory provision replacing or amending them, no development falling within Class 1 or Class 3 of Schedule 2, Part 1 of those Regulations shall take place within the curtilage of the house, without a prior grant of planning permission.
Reason: To ensure the protection of the open garden areas of the site in the interest of the amenities of the area.
______Hugh Mannion Planning Inspector 16 th December 2011
PL 08.239549 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 9