Permission for Clogherhead home granted after denial

A man has been successful in an appeal to An Bord Pleanála against Louth County Council’s decision to refuse him permission for a house.

In deciding to give Stephen Ledwith the go-ahead for the dwelling and a garage at Garrolagh, Clogherhead, the Board went against the recommendation of its inspector.

An application had been made to the local authority for construction of a single storey three-bedroom house, domestic garage, wastewater treatment system, polishing filter percolation area, vehicular entrance onto public road and all associated site development works, with significant further information following.

The county council refused permission because the proposal ‘would entail the removal of an excessive amount of hedgerow (45 metres) to achieve sightlines, negatively impacting the visual amenity and character of the area, and that as such the proposal would be contrary to provisions of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027.’

An appeal against that decision was made to An Bord Pleanála.

Mr Ledwith submitted that the proposal was revised in response to a request for further information and resulted in the removal of 42 metres of hedgerow and not 45 metres as referred to in the refusal.

‘ The removal of 42 metres of hedgerow would be considered an acceptable amount of hedgerow to be removed from viewing Louth County Council and other county councils’ decisions.

‘ The hedgerow needs to be removed in any event so as to comply with a planning condition under PA. Ref. 02/609, which related to the appellant’s parents’ house (to the immediate north of the site).’

An inspector from An Bord Pleanála recommended that permission be refused.

‘Having regard to the documentation submitted, the Board is not satisfied that the applicant has a demonstrable need to live in this rural area. It is considered, therefore, that the applicant does not come within the scope of the rural housing need,’ the inspector reported.

‘Furthermore, taken in conjunction with the existing development in the vicinity, which is characterised by a proliferation of single dwellings, the proposed development would give rise to an excessive density of development in a rural area lacking certain public services, 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 and infrastructure and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.’

The inspector was not satisfied that the site could treat foul effluent arising from the dwelling ‘and considers that the method of foul water disposal will render the treatment of the effluent unacceptable and could increase the risk of serious water pollution’.

However, the Board decided to grant conditional permission.

‘It is considered that, subject to conditions, the proposed development would not be prejudicial to public health or safety and would not detract from the character and visual amenity of the area or the residential amenities of property in the vicinity and would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety and convenience.’

The Board also determined that Mr Ledwith met the qualifying criteria.

‘Furthermore, notwithstanding the number of existing individual treatment systems/septic tanks in the vicinity, having regard to the wastewater treatment system proposed including tertiary treatment, and to the submitted groundwater assessment, it was considered that the proposed development would not be prejudicial to public health or safety.’