Inspectors Report on R238796

8/4/2019 Inspectors Report on R238796

1/8

PL22.238796 An Bord Pleanla Page 1 of 8

An Bord Pleanla

Inspectors Report

Development: 12 no. Houses and Site Works as Phase 1of a three phase development at Puckane,Nenagh.

Planning Application

Planning Authority: North Tipperary County Council

Planning Authority Reg. Ref.: 10/510328

Applicant: Tom and Paddy Harty

Type of Application: Permission

Planning Authority Decision: Refusal

Planning Appeal

Appellant(s): Tom and Paddy Harty

Type of Appeal: 1 st Party

Observers: Puckane Development Association

Date of Site Inspection: 27.5.2011

Inspector: Robert Ryan.


2/8


1.0 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION

The appeal site is located on the northern side of a minor county road c.0.6kilometres west of the centre of Puckaun and the junction with the R493 c.8kilometres north of Nenagh. In the vicinity of the site the public road iscurving (4.5-5.0 metres c/w) with no footpaths or public lighting it is within

a 50 kph speed zone. To the east of the site there is a small housing scheme of semi-detached bungalows followed by a GAA sports ground whilst to the westthere are two houses. On the opposite side of the road there are fields boundedby low hedgerows.

The appeal site is stated to be 4.25 hectares with a road frontage of 27 metresconsisting of high hedging. It is a large open field that gently rises up from theroad and then falls to the north-west there is an attractive view of LoughDerg which is c.1.5 kilometres to the north-west. The site is generally boundedby mature hedgerows and trees, but there is also post and wire fencing and lowembankments. The Phase 1 proposal is 1.4 hectares.

The proposed houses (1,649 square metres) have a broadly similar traditionalstyle design being single-storey with nap plaster/stone walling, slate roofingand raised bargeboards. The houses would connect into public foul and surfacewater drainage systems. The scheme would be the first phase of adevelopment involving the entire field and c.30 houses.

By way of additional information lodged on the 10/2/2011 the scheme wasmodified, but still consists of twelve units involving five designs. The layoutinvolved a spine road (6 metres c/w plus footpaths) curving north-westwardswith five units to the south. A T junction would involve a road runningnorthwards to the boundary with the GAA grounds and at the junction of thetwo roads would be a central open space area of 5,400 square metres square inshape which would ultimately serve the entire scheme. The entrance roadwaywould be flanked by amenity areas. The proposed access would be mid-wayalong the frontage, which would be setback 4 metres from existing position.

2.0 PLANNING AUTHORITYS DECISION

The planning authority gave three reasons for refusal viz.

1. The Planning and Development (Amendment) Act 2010 requires thepreparation and adoption of a Core Strategy into a Development Plan

and Local Area Plan within 1 year of the adoption of RegionalPlanning Guidelines. Having regard to the Core Strategy in the CountyDevelopment Plan, the population targets outlined and Objective CS9which states that it is an objective of the Council to provideappropriately zoned lands to cater for the sustainable growth of theCounty, the planning authority considers that the grant of planningpermission on this site would be premature pending the review of theWestern Local Area Plan and the incorporation of the Core Strategyinto that Plan.


3/8


2. Section 10.4.1 of the County Development Plan 2010 containsstandards relating to sightlines required at site entrances which requiresightlines to be in accordance with the National Roads Authority NRA:Design Manual for Roads and Bridges, January 2009 Road GeometryHandbook. The planning authority considers that the sightlines

available at the proposed entrance are seriously deficient and thedevelopment would result in the creation of a serious traffic hazard tothe detriment of road safety. The development materially contravenesthe road safety standards in respect of entrances and sightlines as setout in Section 10.4.1 of the County Development Plan 2010 and istherefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable developmentof the area.

3. Having regard to the Sustainable Residential Development in UrbanAreas Guidelines for Planning Authorities as issued by theDoEHLG, May 2009 and particularly the requirement for a sequentialapproach to the development of lands, the planning authority considersthat the proposed development would represent the piecemealdevelopment of a larger area of zoned Residential land in Puckaunvillage. It is considered the proposal would prejudice its developmentin a comprehensive manner. As such, it represents a haphazard,piecemeal and uncoordinated development proposal and would not bein accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

3.0 PLANNING AUTHORITY REPORTS

The report of the Area Engineer recommends further information regardingsightlines, surface water disposal, public lighting etc.

The Water Services report dated 24/8/2010 recommends additionalinformation.

The Planning Report dated 8/9/2010 outlines planning history, developmentplan objectives and various objections. She concludes by recommendingadditional information concerning a wide range of issues including need totake account of Puckane Village Design Statement objectives; justify need fora scheme of this scale; need for a social impact statement with particularemphasis on school impact; reassessment of amenity space and landscaping;

need for sightlines to be defined plus traffic impact assessment, lightingscheme and flood avoidance measures; submit details of foul loadings onwaste treatment system including further phases, wayleaves; surface waterdrainage proposals including use of SUDS; indicate watermain layout.

A response including new public notice was lodged with the planningauthority on the 10/2/2011 by TH Engineering and Planning Consultants.


4/8


TH Engineer and Planning Consultants submitted further information to theplanning authority on the 11/3/2011 specifically relating to drainage issues.

The Roads Department report dated 14/3/2011 states that sightlines shown onDrawing 08/166-401 are unacceptable as they require removal of boundariesoutside the site area. No TIA has been lodged and connectivity with village

has not been addressed i.e. lighting/footpath etc. He recommends refusal.

The report dated 15/3/2011 from Environment Section refers to inadequatesight triangle visibility due to lack of control over adjacent lands. Surfacewater requires further on-site testing.

The planning report dated 15/3/2011 recommends refusal.

The planning authority have made no formal submission to the Board.

4.0 GROUNDS OF APPEAL

The applicants agents TH Engineering and Planning Consultants reply asfollows to the planning authoritys decision.

In relation to reason no. 1 Premature pending the review of the Western AreaLocal Area Plan and the Incorporation of the Core Strategy into that Plan,they state that there are 108 housing units within the village of which 17 areholiday homes. There is outstanding permission for one house only. In 2006the village population stood at 239, which represented a decline of over 11%since 2002.

This proposal would increase housing stock by 13% and a 15% increase inpopulation. Using 2002 figures the increase would be 2%. This is in line with10-15% recommended in Sustainable Residential Development in UrbanAreas and would contribute to sustainable growth of the village.

They point out that site is zoned for residential development in the WesternArea Local Area Plan and is low density 2.85 units per acre.

In relation to reason no. 2 (traffic hazard) they state that site is zoned for lowdensity residential development and this was done in the full knowledge thatproposed entrance was only entrance available to these lands. The Plan alsohas an objective to link into the GAA grounds from this property.

The site is within a 50kph zone wherein a 70 metre sightline is required andindeed can be reduced to 50 metres. They consider that sightlines areacceptable and their clients are willing to make a contribution towardsroad/footpath/lighting improvements into the village centre.

In relation to reason no. 3 (need for sequential approach as per Guidelines)they point out that the site directly adjoins an existing housing schemeconsisting of 22 units and would provide an internal link to the GAA facilities,


5/8


thus improving permeability. The Puckane Settlement Plan does not set outany phasing proposal for various residentially zoned lands.

They enclose various appendices in support of their case including Plan andNRA extracts.

5.0 OBSERVER

The Puckane Development Association object to the proposed housing schemeas follows viz.

Village suffers from overzoning of development plan.

Service infrastructure already at or close to capacity.

Proposal does not comply with Smarter Travel A Sustainable TransportFuture A New Transport Policy for Ireland 2009-2020.

Non-compliance with Masterplan 3 of Western Area Local Area Plan.

Inadequate regard to Puckane Village Design Statement.

Problems of Traffic and Road Safety.

Internal layout and design problems.

Inadequate response to A.I. request e.g. flooding, traffic impact,wayleaves etc.

They have also submitted detailed appendices in support of their case.

6.0 DEVELOPMENT PLAN

In the Western Area Local Area Plan 2006 the Strategy for this area is toconsolidate development close to town/village centres and to develop landsequentially from the town/village centres out (p.10). Policy 2 relates toGeneral Development involving suitable location which should be designedaround the needs of the pedestrian, must be accessible to the wholecommunity (including the mobility impaired) and should promote communitysafety. Section 5.2.2 states that low density areas have been provided in orderto counteract urban generated housing in rural areas, utilise self-build onserviced sites and maintain rural character of the village (see Section 6)Masterplan will also be necessary with current site earmarked for Masterplan3 (p.15).

The plan acknowledges that public transport is virtually non-existent withinthis area.


6/8


Section 5.5.7 of the plan states that Puckane has an adequate water supplywith pipe upgrading required to accommodate future medium to long termneeds. In relation to waste treatment there is adequate capacity to cater forshort to medium term demand.

The appeal site is zoned Residential Low Density (p.110) and is within the

village boundary. Masterplan 3 (p107) sets out criteria for site.

Puckane Village Design Statement 2007. (Non-Statutory Plan)

This states that Puckane has a distinctive and diverse character with a 2006population of 239. It states that village sewerage system has limited capacity.The village is fairly tightly developed around its centre. Section 4 (p.10)provides a good aerial photograph of the village with the appeal site at thewestern end.

It states that new development should be of a low density and a location thatconsolidates and strengthens the core of the village.

7.0 ASSESSMENT

Puckane is a small village located 8 kilometres north of Nenagh and as notedin the Village Design Statement most residents commute elsewhere for work.The Western Area Local Area Plan refers to development following asequential approach based on consolidation. These views are reiterated inSustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas Guidelines forPlanning Authorities produced by the DoEHLG in May, 2009. It states thathousing stock needs to be carefully controlled with villages of under 400(Puckane population is 239 in 2006) having new developments of 10-12 unitsrather than large schemes due to the absence of a sufficiently developed localinfrastructure such as schools and community facilities to cater fordevelopment. They acknowledge that lower densities can be acceptable incertain locations, but strongly recommend the avoidance of leap froggingwhereby new development occurs at some remove from the urban area leadingto discontinuities in terms of footpaths, lighting or other services whichmilitates against proper planning and sustainable development.

In this case we are dealing with the first phase (12 units) of a scheme thatcould ultimately reach thirty or more dwellings. The appeal submission refersto 91 permanent dwellings in the village so this is a large scheme that by its

size and scale would inevitably be the main (possibly only) new housing in thevillage for the short/medium term. This would not accord with the sequentialdevelopment outlined above. It is also true to say that the Western Area LocalArea Plan came into force in April, 2006 so that many assumptions orprojections have been overtaken by the recent downturn in the economy. Inother words assumptions of continuing growth, population increase and otherdemographic changes leading to further residential demand have radicallyaltered. The need for good planning practice as set out in the guidelines istherefore more relevant now than ever before. Development at peripheral


7/8


locations such as this in what, by the overall size of the village, remains arelatively large scheme may not be matched by provision of other veryimportant services e.g. construction of footpaths, public lighting or wastewatertreatment plant.

I would state that the revised layout submitted as additional information

represents a major improvement with an attractive centrally location openspace and connection to the GAA grounds/tennis courts whilst the singlestorey house designs are to a high standard.

In relation to services it is unclear that the treatment plant has capacityalthough the Local Area Plan states that it has and the Water Services Reportrefers to some remaining space capacity, but any further phases would beproblematic. The information lodged on the 1/3/2011 indicates that existingpumping station would have adequate capacity to take this load. In relation tosurface water this is a low density scheme on what appears to be good qualityland so the figures lodged appear to be acceptable. The planning authority didnot use these issues as reasons for refusal.

As regards traffic hazard the site has limited road frontage (27 metres) and islocated on a curving section of road with a 4.5 metre carriageway. Theproposal will involve the removal of the entire hedgerow/trees which are amature and attractive feature as one enters the village. Given its peripherallocation I would consider a 70 metre sightline to be appropriate, but thiscannot be achieved due to different land ownership and no submission of consent has been received from the landowners. In my opinion the sightlinesare substandard for this scheme which would be exacerbated by any furtherdevelopment and connection into the sports ground.

8.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

While the scheme is located within a residentially zoned area it is located onthe periphery of the village with a substandard entrance leading to the creationof traffic hazard and with poor connection to the village. In my view it doesnot represent a suitable sequential development as advocated by the LocalArea Plan and the DoEHLG Guidelines and therefore would be contrary to theproper planning and sustainable development of the area. I would thereforesustain the view of the planning authority and recommend that permission berefused.

REASONS AND CONSIDERATIONS1. Notwithstanding that the proposed development is zoned for residential

development, it is situated in a peripheral location served by a poor roadsystem, lacking public footpaths or lighting, and development on this scalewould not represent a logical sequential addition to the overall development of this attractive village and as such, would be contrary to the current WesternArea Local Area Plan 2006 and to the Guidelines for Planning Authorities onSustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas issued by the


8/8


Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in May,2009. As such, it represents a haphazard, piecemeal and uncoordinateddevelopment that would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainabledevelopment of the area.

2. It is considered that the sightlines at the junction of the proposed access roadand public road are severely restricted and the traffic movements generated bythis proposal would result in the creation of traffic hazard to road users. Theproposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planningand sustainable development of the area.

________________________Robert Ryan,Senior Planning Inspector.

8th July, 2011.

sg

Documents

Inspectors Report on R238796