Permission refused for ‘granny flat’
WICKLOW County Council has refused permission to Mary Coughlan to retain a newly erected independent living structure on her land.
The council had written to Ms Coughlan regarding what they said were unauthorised structures.
The structure is located at Barchuilla Commons, Kilmacanogue. There are also a stables and tack shed nearby.
An engineer for Bray Municipal District recommended refusal. ‘The site development works, including the clearance of the natural vegetation, have taken place since May 2016 with the construction of the sheds, and June 2016 with the construction of the dwelling,’ he wrote.
‘The dwelling is accessed by a narrow unpaved track that becomes heavily rutted with surface water runoff from the mountain during wet weather and is unsuitable for vehicular traffic. Vegetation clearance will lead to more rapid surface water runoff and no drainage assessment or drainage details have been provided to demonstrate how this is being addressed.’
He said that the waste water treatment system serving both dwellings is heavily dependent on a reliable power supply and regular maintenance and is not a resilient or sustainable system. ‘No information has been supplied to demonstrate the quality of the water supply from the well,’ he wrote.’
According to the report, the application was for permission to retain a domestic outbuilding of 66 square metres, including the porch.
The unit is currently occupied by the applicant’s daughter, sonin-law and their son.
While the unit is being used by immediate family, which is within the guidelines, it is not an integrated part of the main house and not in close proximity to the main house.
The unit is served by its own vehicular access and private amenity space and is visually and functionally separated.
‘Having reviewed the history file, there is a lack of clarity regarding the ownership of the site,’ wrote the planner. ‘The submitted application form and site layout indicate that Mary Coughlan is the owner of the lands within the red site boundary. However the information on the UD file indicates that the land is in separate ownership.’
The planner wrote that on the day of the site visit three of the rooms were in use as bedrooms and the size exceeds the 45 square metre limit. ‘It is considered that the building does not qualify as an independent living unit, and is in fact a separate dwelling in its own right. The dwelling is within the rural area where dwellings will only be permitted subject to compliance with the rural housing objectives of the CDP,’ wrote the planner.
The dwelling is located within a scenic and sensitive area of natural beauty. It is not highly visible from the surrounding road network and does not have a significant adverse impact on the visual amenity of the area.
The planner wrote that access is via an unpaved narrow private road. ‘The road is substandard and not suitable for additional traffic movements associated with the proposed unit.’