An Bord Pleanála Ref.:PL13.228827

An Bord Pleanála

Inspector’s Report

Development House Brachaharagh, ,

Planning Application

Planning Authority: Kerry County Council

Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 08/195

Applicant: Kevin C. Murphy

Type of Application: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Grant Permission Subject to Conditions

Planning Appeal

Appellant(s): Catherine Loitz

Type of Appeal: Third Party Against Grant

Observers: An Taisce

Date of Site Inspection: 28.8.08

Inspector: John Taylor

PL08.228827 An Bord Pleanála Page 1 of 9 1.0 LOCATION

The site lies on the coast on the southern side of the Iveragh Peninsular approximately 2.75 kilometres to the east of Caherdaniel and 2 kilometres to the south-west of Castle Cove. N70 (the Ring of Kerry) runs in a generally south-west to north- east direction approximately 500 metres to the north-west of the site.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

The site has a stated area of 0.313 hectares and consists of an irregularly shaped area of overgrown and unused land between a minor public road and the shore (at Cove Bay) within a small cluster of houses on both sides of the public road. The site appears at one time to have been agricultural, but has clearly not been used for such purposes for many years.

Along the frontage, the public road runs in a south-east to north-west direction for a distance of approximately 105 metres before curving south-westwards close to the western end of the site and continuing westwards and north-westwards to a T junction with the N70. To the south-east, the road continues for a further 500 metres approximately before terminating close to the shore.

The northern boundary of the site is defined by High Water Mark with Cove Bay beyond. To the west and east, the site is adjoined by other dwellings with further detached houses to the south on the opposite side of the road.

The site is overgrown with vegetation including a number of trees of varying heights, particularly along the road frontage, and areas of reeds along the shore. The existing site entrance is located at the eastern end of the frontage. From that point, the site slopes down by approximately 6.5 metres to the shore.

The public road serving the site is subject to the 80kph speed limit and is in moderate to poor surface condition. Along the site frontage, it has a carriageway width varying between 2.6 metres and 2.8 metres, with localised widening where the entrances to dwellings have been constructed.

3.0 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

The proposed development consists of the construction of a single-storey dwelling of 94 square metres floor space, an effluent treatment unit and percolation area, and an improved entrance and access drive. The dwelling would be positioned broadly in the centre of the site set back by 14 metres from the road. It would be, at its closest, approximately 4.5 metres from high water mark and set into the slope with a finished floor level 2.3 metres above high water mark.

A Landscaping Plan was lodged with the application indicating the retention of much of the existing vegetation and some new planting on both sides of the improved entrance.

Water supply would be from the public mains.

PL08.228827 An Bord Pleanála Page 2 of 9

4.0 THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

In the Kerry County Development Plan 2003-2009, the site lies in an area designated as Rural Secondary Special Amenity.

Section 3.3.7 of the Plan states that areas of secondary special amenity constitute 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. Subject to the provisions of Sections 3.3.4 and 3.3.8 of the Plan, residential development for use as primary places of residence will be favourably considered. Applicants for dwellings in these areas should therefore assess any proposed development with a view to achieving this. Copies of the relevant pages of the Plan are enclosed in the photograph pouch attached to this report.

Development control guidance for residential development in rural and serviced areas is set out in Section 12.4 of the Plan.

Section 11 of the plan deals with Zoning and Landscape. It includes a Rural Zoning Objective (ZL11-4) to regulate residential development in Rural Areas in accordance with the zoning designation of that area and the policies in Section 3 of the Plan. There is also a general zoning objective (ZL11-10) to protect the landscape of the county as a major economic asset as well as for its invaluable amenity value.

Section 10.3 of the Plan contains objectives relating to development within the Coastal Development Zone, which, for planning purposes, is stated to be usually the area between High Water Mark and the nearest coastal road within visual influence of the sea (extract also enclosed).

5.0 PLANNING HISTORY

In 1997, Kerry County Council decided to grant permission (Planning Authority Register Ref. 276/97) for a traditional dormer house and a boathouse on the site. Following a third party appeal by Catherine and Michael Loitz, the Bord refused permission (Ref. PL.08.102825) for the following reason:

‘Having regard to the policies expressed in section 8.2.2 of the current Kerry County Development Plan, it is considered that the proposed development, by reason of its location on a site which is exposed due to its close proximity to the water’s edge, to the West Cove pier located directly opposite and to the inadequate screening, would constitute an intrusive feature in this Area of Secondary Amenity and would contravene materially these policies, which are considered reasonable. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.’

Details are also on file of a number of permissions for one-off dwellings in the area.

PL08.228827 An Bord Pleanála Page 3 of 9 6.0 CONSULTATIONS AND REPORTS

There are no consultation responses on file from any internal or external bodies.

The Planner’s Report described the development and the site, outlined its Planning History and relevant Development Plan policy and the objections received from the Appellant and the Observer. It then expressed the view that traffic matters, effluent disposal, surface water disposal and residential amenities were not at issue. Visual impact was identified as the main issue, following the Bord’s refusal in 1997. The Report noted that the development was then for a large dormer-style dwelling and detached boathouse. The current proposal is for a small-scale single-storey dwelling which will integrate better and fall into the visual parameters of the existing cluster without extending the visual element further along the landscape. The Report concluded therefore that the subject development had addressed the concerns of the Bord and, subject to the de-exempting of any further development on site, would be acceptable.

John O’Donoghue, T.D., enquired about the appeal, stating that he is most anxious for it to be processed.

7.0 THE PLANNING AUTHORITY’S DECISION

Kerry County Council decided to grant permission subject to 14 conditions.

Condition 2 requires the dwelling to be used as a permanent residence by the applicant for 7 years and Condition 3 prevented use of the dwelling as a holiday home/second home. Condition 5 provides that no additional structures shall be erected on site without prior approval.

Condition 4 requires the developer to pay to the Planning Authority the sum of €1,549 in respect of public water and facilities benefiting the development.

8.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

The Grounds of Appeal can be summarised as follows:

• The appellant claims that the proposed development will impact on the flora (including Kerry Lilies and Kerry Orchids), fauna and trees on one of the last untouched water’s edge sites which until now has been agricultural. It is claimed that even a small building would destroy the natural harmony of this narrow site on the water’s edge. • Permission has already been refused by the Bord for a building on this site and the appellant is unaware of any change in policies since that time. • Concern is expressed that, due to the narrowness of the site, the building will be either too close to the road or to the water’s edge, especially at high tide. • It is mentioned that the whole area between and Waterville contains a wealth of choice of recently built houses. A unique and natural site such as the subject site should be protected from development.

PL08.228827 An Bord Pleanála Page 4 of 9

9.0 RESPONSE SUBMISSIONS

The Applicant

The Response Submissions can be summarised as follows:

• The proposed site has not been used for agricultural purposes for a considerable number of years. A survey of the vegetation on site was undertaken by a known expert who also prepared the detail of the Landscaping Plan. He states that the Kerry Lily does not exist on the site. The dense growth requires thinning and the main tree species are being retained and additional planting proposed. The loss will not be significant and in any event Condition 14 ensures appropriate protection. • The proposed house, at just over 1000 square feet, is small and integrates well into the trees on the site. Tree loss will be confined to two hollies and areas of dense blackthorn. There will be minimal disturbance to the overall site (about 20% of the total site) to accommodate the house. • The previous planning application for the site, refused by the Bord, was for a larger dormer house and boathouse, which would have had a greater impact on the views from the Loitz house. In addition, the current proposal involves a genuine housing need, whereas the previous application was for a holiday home. • Regarding the narrowness of the site, it is well in excess of the minimum required with sufficient distances to road and boundaries and the positioning has been carefully thought out. The proposed floor level is in excess of 2 metres above the spring tide level on a shoreline in a sheltered backwater. • The applicant is owner of this piece of land, which is the only property he owns. He is an established local resident, an experienced fisherman and sailor, a founder member of a local sailing club and greatly appreciates the opportunity to reside close to the water. • Consultation took place with the appellant and her husband who indicated that there would be no objection to the proposal, which would have no adverse impact on her view. There was also a request made by the appellant’s husband to bring a boat onto the subject site. It is pointed out that the appellant resides in Germany and uses the property at Brackanaragh as a holiday home. • As a full-time resident of Caherdaniel for the past 29 years, the applicant has contributed much to the local community from whom he has received many letters of support in this application (some of which are attached to the appeal). The applicant has had to live in rented accommodation for the past 16 years. • The applicant considers it significant that An Taisce did not appeal the decision of Kerry County Council.

The Planning Authority

There are no Response Submissions on file from Kerry County Council.

10.0 OBSERVERS

An Taisce’s observations can be summarised as follows:

PL08.228827 An Bord Pleanála Page 5 of 9 • The site is limited in depth and has a considerable amount of tree cover. • There is no evidence that there has ever been a house on this site. Although the previous refusal was for a different development in terms of size and location, the same objections still apply. • The position of the proposal close to the water’s edge has implications, not just for visual reasons but also for future rise in sea levels and coastal erosion. Development Plan policy in general recommends that only essential development should be permitted beside the water’s edge. The proposed house is not essential development and could be located elsewhere. • Although the applicant is a resident of the area for many years, his profession does not require him to live on this site and he has no connection with this farm landholding. • A permission here in an area that is already overdeveloped could set a precedent for further such development between the road and West Cove Harbour. • In terms of visual impact, consideration needs to be given to the impact of the house once the trees are removed from the site. • As regards protected species, the question is asked whether James O’Shea looked out for the presence of ‘Kerry lilies’ and also whether the advice of the National Parks and Wildlife Service was sought.

11.0 ASSESSMENT

Introduction

The Bord in 1997 refused permission for a larger dwelling and boathouse on the subject site for reasons of intrusion in an Area of Special Secondary Amenity and the location on a site which is exposed due to its close proximity to the water’s edge, to the West Cove pier directly opposite and to its inadequate screening. The current proposal, which is for a dwelling for permanent occupation by a local person, complies in principle with both Development Plan policy for dwellings in Areas of Rural Secondary Special Amenity and with the policies set out in the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines for Areas with Clustered Settlement Patterns. The main issue in this case is therefore whether or not the current submission overcomes the Bord’s reason for refusing the previous larger proposal, which essentially related to intrusion on a site close to the water’s edge.

I shall also consider a number of other matters including the adequacy of the local road network.

Potential Intrusion

The subject development consists, in building terms, of a relatively small two-bedroom single-storey dwelling with a height to ridge of 4.8 metres. It was positioned on the lower portion of the site close to the shore and set partially into the slope. Its finished floor level would be 2.3 metres above high water mark and 3.4 metres below the level of the public road. Its ridge would be 7.1 metres above high water mark and 1.5 metres above road level.

In the Response Submission, the applicant attached photographs showing the ridge poles that he had erected on the site. My site inspection confirmed that a dwelling of the height and size proposed, while being partially visible from the widened entrance, would be unintrusive from PL08.228827 An Bord Pleanála Page 6 of 9 much of the road, given the retention and reinforcement of the vegetation on site and the setting of the dwelling downslope. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would be unlikely to be visible form the main windows of the dwelling opposite (whose floor level is approximately 3.6 metres above the ridge height of the proposed house), again due to the vegetation and sloping site. In my opinion, a house of the size proposed would have an acceptable visual impact along the public road in the vicinity of the site.

The Bord’s concern on the previous appeal related more to the impact that a new dwelling would have on the water’s edge and on views from West Cove Pier directly opposite the site on the northern side of Cove Bay. My photographs, and those attached to the Response Submission, indicate that a new dwelling would be visible from West Cove Pier, but its impact would be reduced by the surrounding vegetation and by its being perceived against the backdrop of a slope on which a cluster of one-off dwellings are already grouped. However, the new dwelling, being so close to high water mark, would still have a considerable impact on the shore in the vicinity of the site. This area presently has a natural appearance with a transition from a rock-strewn shore to areas of reeds followed by overgrown bracken and then trees and other vegetation on the main part of the site. Even a modest dwelling would be a significant intrusion into this area of generally unspoilt coast.

Section 10.3 of the County Development Plan relates to coastal areas. As the Observer points out, the site lies within the Coastal Development Zone established in the Plan. Several policies/objectives for the coastal zone are set out in the Plan. These include Objective EN10- 28, which is to allow within the Coastal Development Zone only development for which a coastal location is required. Although the applicant is a local person, there is no evidence that he requires a coastal location for his dwelling, as opposed to a site on the landward side of the public road.

The proposed development therefore conflicts in my view with County Development Plan policy regarding integration into the landscape in Areas of Secondary Special Amenity and the need to protect the coastline from anything other than essential development.

Other Matters

The public road serving the site is narrow and in moderate to poor surface condition. However, traffic along the road is mostly light (many of the cluster of existing houses being holiday homes) and County Development Plan policies do not rule out cluster developments of limited size on highway grounds (except where National Roads are involved). If local persons with a genuine housing need are to be accommodated, minor roads of the standard of the frontage road are probably the only realistic option in many cases.

Objective 10-27 of the Plan was also mentioned by the Observer. This states that developments will be judged in terms of their potential impact on national and cultural heritage, whilst considering the risks from flooding and erosion. Such risks were not considered in the Planner’s Report, nor were they debated in the lodged Site Characterisation Report. In my opinion, the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources should have been consulted on the proposal as it constitutes development which might impact on the foreshore. Lack of information on these aspects is a deficiency in the scheme, but one which perhaps could have been resolved after consultation with the Department.

PL08.228827 An Bord Pleanála Page 7 of 9 The Site Characterisation Report indicated that water was present in the Trial Hole at 1.8 metres below ground level. The solution proposed was a mechanical aeration unit with a constructed soil polishing/percolation area. Notwithstanding the use of this proprietary system, I am not convinced, given the high water table and relatively fast percolation rate, that the site is suitable for the on-site system proposed.

The appellant made reference to the presence of Kerry Lilies and Kerry Orchids on the site. However, the letter from James 0’Shea, horticulturalist, Derrynane National Park confirmed that there are no rare flora growing on the site.

The proposed building form would be relatively simple with a footprint consisting of a main rectangular element with a pitched roof parallel to the shore and two projections, with pitched roofs at right angles to the main roof, looking towards the sea. I see no objection to this design solution.

With regard to housing need, I appreciate that the applicant is a local person who wishes to build his own house in the area, but there appears to be no specific need for him to live at this particular site.

I have considered all other matters raised in the submissions before reaching my conclusion.

12.0 CONCLUSION

I have concluded that the proposed dwelling, although an improvement over that previously refused by the Bord in terms of impact on views from West Cove Pier, would still represent an intrusion into an area of generally unspoilt coastline, contrary to Development Plan policies regarding integration into the landscape in Areas of Secondary Special Amenity and regarding protection of the coastline from inessential development.

The public road serving the site is inadequate in both width and surface condition. However, traffic is light and the applicant is a local person who satisfies County Development Plan rural housing policies in principle. If the public road were the only concern, I would not see it as an overriding objection.

I also consider that the application submission was inadequate because of its lack of assessment of risks from flooding and erosion (matters of increasing concern with rising sea levels), but this might have been resolved if the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources had been consulted.

Finally, there are, in my opinion, doubts as to the suitability of the site for an on-site effluent treatment system.

13.0 RECOMMENDATION

Having read the file, visited the site and considered the submissions, I recommend that permission be refused for the following reasons and considerations:

PL08.228827 An Bord Pleanála Page 8 of 9

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS

The site of the proposed development is located in an area designated as an Area of Special Amenity on the current Kerry County Development Plan, where it is the policy of the Planning Authority only to permit development that can be integrated into the landscape. The site also lies within the Coastal Development Zone set out in the Development Plan where it is the policy of the Planning Authority to allow only development for which a coastal location is required. Having regard to the location of the development between the water’s edge and the public road, it is considered that the proposed development would seriously injure the amenities of the area, would contravene materially the policies of the Planning Authority and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Having regard to the soil conditions and high water table, the Bord is not satisfied, on the basis of the submissions made in connection with the planning application and appeal, that the site can be drained satisfactorily by the proposed use of a proprietary wastewater treatment system. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health.

______

John Taylor

Inspector

10.10.08

PL08.228827 An Bord Pleanála Page 9 of 9