Planning for Clare house on hold over failure to upgrade road

PLANS for the development of a one-off dwelling house near Feakle have been put on hold following an appeal by neighbouring residents, writes Dan Danaher.

Patrick Treacy, c/o Paul Dolan RDF Architects and Planning Ltd Unit 19, Charleville Town Centre, Charleville was granted planning permission by Clare County Council for the construction of a new dwelling house.

The house is to be single storey and part two storey, with ground floor garage attached to the dwelling, externally accessed green house, proposed wastewater treatment unit with polishing filter and percolation area, new site vehicular entrance and all associated site works at Lacorroe, Feakle.

One of the conditions for last July’s planning approval stipulated no development shall commence on site unless and until the access road has been upgraded to the satisfaction of the council with details to be submitted and agreed.

The appeal site, which has a stated area of 3.56 hectares, is located to the north west of Scariff and west of Lough Derg.

It is on southern side of an existing access road that is narrow and unsurfaced and currently serving agricultural lands, which it is part of. The nearest dwelling is located to the east of the site.

In an inspector’s report submitted to An Bord Pleanála, the council confirmed it sought further information required including submission of proposals for upgrade of access road, clarification regarding the trial hole test, details regarding plans for the full extent of the site/landscaping proposals and details regarding measures to prevent ponding/flooding adjacent the entrance.

The proposed development was considered to be in accordance with Development Plan policy, acceptable in the context of visual amenity of the area, the amenities of adjoining properties, traffic impact and public health.

However, a third party appeal was lodged by Virginia Browne and Julia Walters, Suiamhneas, Lacarroe, Feakle, who reside in the existing dwelling located to the north east of the appeal site.
In their appeal, they claimed there are drainage issues with ponding of water on the site at the location of driveway.

They stated the dwelling would be highly visible in the surrounding area due to the open nature of the site and lack of screening.

Concerns regarding loss of privacy and increased activity on site impacting existing residential amenity were expressed by the appellants who described the development as backland development.

“The existing access road is substandard in width and alignment, surface and drainage. The impact of headlights shining into the appellants’ property is noted and sight lines are restricted along the access road,” they stated.

In his response, Mr Treacy recalled the issue of drainage was dealt with in the further information submission and noted the proposed development would be designed to alleviate such.

The applicant noted the dwelling is sufficiently separated from the appellants’ dwelling and the overall scale of the dwelling is modest and impact on visual amenity would be acceptable as well as being in accordance with the Clare Rural House Design Guide.

He stated the issue concerning the road and upgrade was resolved in the further information response with the applicant consulting with the Area Engineer.

Clare County Council told the appeals board the upgrade works would be designed by the local authority and carried out by the applicant to their satisfaction.

The authority stated the majority of the site is to remain in agricultural use with no change adjoining the appellants’ dwelling.

It outlined there is significant separation between the proposed dwelling and the appellants’ dwelling.

Outlining its reasons for refusal, the board stated the existing road serving the site is seriously inadequate in width, alignment and condition and is completely unsuitable for additional traffic movements likely to be generated by the proposed development.

“The proposed development would constitute a traffic hazard and cause obstruction to other road users. In addition there is a lack of clarity regarding the nature of works and feasibility of upgrading the road to the necessary standard with the proposal leading to demands for the uneconomic provision of further public services and facilities in an area where these are not proposed.

“The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

The board alleged the proposed development doesn’t comply with National Policy Objective 19 and would contribute to the encroachment of random rural development in the area, would militate against the preservation of the rural environment and the efficient provision of public services.