BROTHERS’ APPLICATIONS FOR HOMES TURNED DOWN AGAIN

TWO brothers who won a High Court legal challenge over being refused planning permission to build homes on lands in Ballylug gifted to them by their father have had their application turned down by An Bord Pleanála for a second time.

In January 2018, Justice Miriam O’Regan directed that the planning applications by Paul and Tony Porter must be reconsidered by An Bord Pleanála in line with her High Court findings. Those findings included that the board’s refusals were irrational when it had, on appeal, granted permission to their sister Stephanie for a house on the lands at Ballylug.

In January of 2016, an application by Paul and Tony Porter to construct their own homes on the lands were refused by Wicklow County Council. The local authority planning section felt the development would present a traffic hazard, had intrusive features and that no housing need was demonstrated in line with the Rural Housing Guidelines.

An Bord Pleanála rejected the brothers appeal in June 2016, leading to an appeal to the High Court.

However, An Bord Pleanála has once again turned down the application for two homes on the site.

The Bord noted the location of the site within an area where housing is restricted to persons demonstrating a ‘definable and social or economic need’ to live in the open countryside. The Bord felt that neither applicant had demonstrated that they came within the housing need criteria as set out in the Development Plan for houses at this location in open countryside.

The Bord also wasn’t satisfied the housing needs of the brothers couldn’t be met satisfactorily in an established smaller town, village or settlement centre.

According to the Bord: ‘ The proposed development, in the absence of any definable or demonstrable need for the house, would contribute to the encroachment of random rural development in the area, and would militate against the preservation of the rural environment and the efficient provision of public services and infrastructure. The proposed development would, therefore, contravene the Ministerial Guidelines, be contrary to national policy and conflict with the provisions of the current County Development Plan’.

The site of the proposed developments is also located in an area which is designated as an ‘Area of High Amenity’ in the County Development Plan. The Bord agreed with the inspector’s report which stated that the proposed developments would comprise a visually incongruous and obtrusive feature in the landscape, would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.