Newport causeway removal ordered
Neill O’Neill
A couple who built a causeway without planning permission to access their house on a small Clew Bay island will have to revert back to accessing the residence in accordance with the tides by mid-October.
Anne Fitzsimons and Brian Ruane constructed the causeway to Rosbarnagth Island in Rossanrubble, near Newport in early 2005, but were served with an enforcement order to remove it and reinstate the area by Mayo County Council on April 1 that year. They then made an appeal for retention of the causeway to the Council, which was refused and brought a further appeal, also for retention, to An Bord Pleanála. When this was also refused, Mayo County Council made an application to the court for a demolition order – which was granted last Wednesday at Clifden Circuit Court.
The causeway in question comprises of a row of 16 pre-cast concrete pipes, which allow tidal flow along the channel separating the island from the mainland at Rossanrubble. Concrete and gravel fill was placed between the concrete pipes and this was overlaid with pre-cast concrete slabs. The bridge is approximately 2.2 metres above the existing ground level of the channel and 27 metres in length.
It was argued that the couple had built the causeway across a navigable waterway, without planning permission, and in an area of Clew Bay which is a Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The construction therefore, it was contended, had upset the natural ecology and marine life in this protected region.
Observations and concerns relating to the building of the causeway had been made to the Council by local residents and the Council felt that if permission was granted to the defendants to retain the causeway it would set a precedent whereby every owner of land on the Clew Bay foreshore could construct similar causeways and then apply for retention orders after the fact, thus rendering the planning laws obsolete.
In their appeal to An Bord Pleanála, the defendants stated that in buying the property they understood that they were permitted to construct an access and did not realise planning permission was needed for this. They had planned to make the dwelling on Rosbarnagh their main family residence and for this reason considered it important to have access at all times. In the event of an emergency, medical or otherwise, the causeway would be vitally important. As access to the house was extremely limited, and at times of high tide by boat only, the defendants set about constructing the causeway.
The appeal also stated that it was never their intention to flout any regulations.
In their refusal decision, given in March 2006, An Bord Pleanála agreed with Mayo County Council’s three reasons for not allowing retention of the causeway and upheld the earlier decision. They referred to the Council’s original planning report, which found that the development was visually obtrusive in a naturally picturesque landscape. This report found that the causeway was in contravention of the Mayo County Development Plan on two counts – in that it had a disproportionate effect on the surrounding landscape and because it would adversely affect the conservation and preservation of a European protected conservation site. The third reason related to the issue of setting a precedent.
The Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources had warned, in a report on this case, that granting permission to retain the causeway would give liberty to every other landowner around Clew Bay to construct such access routes and apply for retention. An Bord Pleanála concluded this would be undesirable. Their decision also cited a report from the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government which stated that no proper assessment was undertaken by the defendants in order to ascertain the potential impact of the proposed development on the SAC.
Judge Raymond Groarke examined photographs of the site prior to giving his decision. In ordering that the causeway be removed, he said that it was not unsightly and that the defendants, in his opinion, had made attempts to reconcile it with the surroundings. He said that no great fight was being put up that this was an unauthorised development, because clearly it was, and accordingly he had to make the order to remove it. He said the defendants must have known they would bring the wrath of the gods down on themselves when they commenced the development.
He then suggested a three-month timeframe for completion of the necessary works and said they must be carried out in a manner which is satisfactory to the local authority.
Mayo County Council were also seeking a demolition order against the defendants for a conservatory which they had build without planning permission onto their house on Rosbarnagh Island. This conservatory is the subject of an active appeal with An Bord Pleanála and Judge Groarke said that he would adjourn the application in respect of the conservatory until the appeal in relation thereto had been determined.
On the issue of costs, Judge Groarke said that in making any order the statute weighs heavily against a non-compliant developer. He said that he needed to find exceptional circumstances not to award costs against the defendants and that, while he had sympathy for them, this did not amount to exceptional circumstances. He awarded costs to Mayo County Council saying that he was compelled to do so.
