Couple object to Finavarra shed extension

AN appeal has been lodged with An Bord Pleanála after Clare County Council granted planning permission for retention permission for an extension to an existing agricultural shed at Finavarra, along with permission for the lowering of existing roofline of the extension and completion of works.

Fiona Woods and Andrew Collins have objected to the decision and they also objected to the original application to Clare County Council.

In the Clare County Council planning report on the application, the section on planning history stated Mr Kerins had previously been refused permission for retention and completion permission for an extension to a shed at the same address.

It said planning permission at the time was refused for one reason as follows: Having regard to the scale and height of the building as proposed to retain and complete and its proximity to dwellings that lie to the west and north-west of the site, it is considered that the proposed development would detract from the residential amenities of the adjacent dwellings. It is considered that the development would seriously injure the residential amenities of the area and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

With regard too pre-planning, it stated Mr Kerins had been given indications that if he agreed to reduce the height of the shed, he may be successful. “After the decision to refuse permission on planning ref 12-133, the agent for the applicant contacted the area planner on behalf of the applicant and queried if a reduction in the height of the shed could address the concerns of the planning authority.

“The agent was advised that a shed with a reduced ridge height may be considered acceptable subject to the submission of a planning application and with due consideration being given to all reports and submissions as received on such an application.”

A summary of the submission from Ms Woods and Mr Collins stated they have a number of concerns about the proposal.

It stated they did not believe the proposed development was solely for agricultural purposes as was claimed.

It said they had submitted video evidence from November 2010 to September 2012 showing the operation of light industrial and agri machinery in close proximity to their house.

It said various types of machines had been operated from the area in 2010. “The objectors raise concerns as regards noise and light pollution from the subject yard and state that the yard underwent a change of use at the beginning of 2010. The objectors state that they have lived at this location for nine years and that in 2010, the field that was at the location of the site was cleared and machines of various kinds – tractors, diggers, dumper trucks, vans and lorries – have been operated and parked a few metres from their home.”
It also said the objectors have “serious concerns” in terms of the residential amenities of the home and that the applicant owns other lands the shed could go on.

In her assessment, senior planner Helen Quinn recommended permission be granted subject to five conditions.

She did not accept that the residential amenity would be damaged. “It is noted that there are three houses in close proximity to the subject site. The thatched cottage to the south is the applicant’s own dwelling house. There are two houses to the west of the site, with the furthest [sic] of these being 37m from the subject shed and the closer dwelling being 15m from the subject shed.

“As the proposed shed is in an established farmyard and is for agricultural storage purposes only, it is considered that this will not have a negative impact on the dwelling that is 37m to the west.

“Consideration is given to the residential amenities and privacy of the dwelling that is located approximately 15m to the west of the subject site. It is noted that the owners and occupants of this dwelling have submitted a lengthy objection to the proposed development and are very concerned in terms of the impact that the proposed development may have on their residential amenities and privacy. The objectors also state that they feel that the shed will not be used for agricultural uses as stated and that light industrial uses and machinery repair uses have been carried out on the site in the past.

“On my inspection of this site on September 21 2012, I did not note anything which would lead me to suspect that this site is in use for any activity other than normal agricultural activity. I note that the objection as submitted and the photos as submitted of activities taking place at this site that were not agricultural in nature, however, on my inspection of the site on 21/9/2012, I did not observe any activity of a non-agricultural nature.”

She also stated she had visited the site in August of this year and had met with Mr Kerins.

“Having regard to my inspections of this site and to the details as submitted, I consider that the shed as proposed (being for agricultural storage purposes only) will not have a negative impact on the residential amenities and privacy of the adjacent dwelling to the west. It is considered appropriate that the use of the shed and farmyard be regulated by way of planning condition.”

An Bord Pleanála are due to decide on the matter by March 15 of next year.