For decision click here

For inspectors report click here

WATERFORD COUNTY COUNCIL DECISION CONDEMNED BY AN BORD PLEANALA

In a scathing dismissal of the decision by Waterford County Council Planning Authority An Board Pleanala unanimously vetoed the Council’s decision to grant planning permission to Islandikane Developments Ltd. for what their inspector describes as a “travesty in planning and environmental terms”.

“Travesty”

An Bord Pleanála inspector Ms Caryn Coogan dismisses the decision by Waterford County Council to grant permission for the development and leaves the local authority in no doubt of her opinion of the value of the site or the extent of their error saying: “the site itself is breathtakingly beautiful and as it unfolds from east to west, it exhibits an astounding untamed coastal countryside which is an unspoilt wilderness worth protecting as part of our national heritage. In my opinion, the development plan policies should seek to preserve such landscapes for future generations to enjoy and experience as these areas are diminishing rapidly along our national coastline. To encourage and permit the proposed scheme given its scale, design, location and impact, is a travesty in planning and environmental terms”.

“Urban Sprawl”

The report relentlessly refutes the Council’s decision to allow the development stating that the proposal “flies in the face of the National Spatial Strategy and the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines”. It describes the proposed development as “urban sprawl” and describes Variation No. 7, the amendment to the county development plan under which the proposal was submitted to Waterford County Council, as “very conveniently” suiting the proposed scheme. In relation to Variation No. 7 Ms Coogan goes on to question whether the amendment is in line with the National Spatial Strategy or the Department’s Guidelines on Sustainable Rural Housing.  Ms Coogan’s report goes on to point out that: “a number of the appellants have raised the issue of procedural matters relating to the lack of public knowledge and poor advertising of Variation No. 7 and the fact the planning application was received a short time after the adoption of same.”

“Incomprehensible”

In withering attack on the Council’s disregard of its own planning guidelines Ms Coogan articulates her incredulity at its decision to grant planning permission stating that “overall based on basic national planning principles and guidelines, and local development plan policies, it is incomprehensible how the nature and scale of the dwellings could be included and permitted on the subject site given its European status, national and local planning policy and given the sensitivity of the ecology and the superior quality of the amenities at the location.”

Ms Coogan’s assessment of the submission by Islandikane Developments Ltd finds that the proposal will “not reinforce or strengthen the existing rural community” but that it does in fact “materially contravene the development plan” by “maximising sporadic suburban-like development in the open countryside within a highly scenic and protected landscape”. She unambiguously asserts that the proposed development is in fact “contrary to the objectives of granting genuine rural housing need in suitable locations on a scale and a pace which will not diminish County Waterford’s high quality rural environment”.

“Irresponsible”

With regard to the site as a Special Area of Conservation and with specific reference to the chough and the effects that the development would potentially have on the integrity of the site as a habitat for the red listed and protected birds the An Bord Pleanala’s inspector reserves her most damning attack saying “the planning authority’s justification for granting the proposal in the context of chough conservation, is in my view, irresponsible.” She continues “I would have grave reservations regarding the future of the chough at this location given the construction works involved, the extensive intrusion onto the habitat and the SPA and the lack of data on chough usage of the area and the wider area.”

So as not to leave Waterford County Council in any doubt as to her opinion she concludes her report by saying: “having examined the planning file, the site and the appeal documentation, I cannot comprehend the planning authority’s assessment or decision relating to the proposed development based on the European legal status of the site, European Case law, Ministerial advice and guidance, and national and local planning policy governing the area. The irreversible loss of an internationally important habitat and the uniquely adapted bird species along the Mid-Waterford coastline is a high and unnecessary price to pay for this poorly substantiated economic development which is unjustifiable in planning and environmental policy grounds.”