Bord Pleanála overrule their inspector on 5.5km SAC fence

Bord PleanΡla overrule their inspector on 5.5km SAC fence


Anton McNulty

AN Bord PleanΡla (ABP) have overturned the recommendations of their own inspector when they ruled the erection of a 5.5km long fence within a Special Area of Conservation was not exempted development.
The board of ABP voted by a majority of six to one to reject the recommendations of their inspector and decided the erection of a fence consisting of wooden posts and wire at Derrylura, Liscarney, Westport was not exempted development.
The request to erect the 5.5km fence through the Mweelra/Sheeffry/Erriff Complex SAC was made by local landowner, Thady Gavin and referred to APB by the Department of Arts, Heritage and the Gaeltachta who asked whether erection of fencing within an SAC is development which is not exempted.
The Department stated they did not think it was not exempted development on the grounds that damage may be caused to the site by the erection of the fence, damage to vegetation as stocking density may change, damage along the fence by repeated walking by livestock and fragmentation of the bog. They also felt the 5.5km long fence would have a significant effect on the SAC.
Mayo County Council also lodged a submission which stated it was not exempt because it would comprise fencing of lands habitually open to the public.
In his submission, Mr Gavin stated the lands are not open to the public, there are no public rights of way on these lands and access is through private lands only. He also stated the County Council’s view is that driving stakes into the ground is construction but hanging wire is not.

Dictionary definition
In his report, the inspector Hugh Mannion made reference to the Oxford English Dictionary definition of a number of words including excavation, alter and habitually and if they applied in this case.
He visited the site during the summer months and observed the fencing in situ and concluded that they were driven into the earth without the need of excavation and therefore the development would not lose its exemption for being excavation.
He also concluded the the fencing would not have the effect of materially altering the landscape sufficiently to remove the exemption ordinarily available to such fencing.
Mr Mannion estimated that the site consisted of 300 hectares of ‘very poor land’ and has a very low stocking rate. He said the question of intensification of use is a matter distinct from the matter the subject of this application – the erection of a fence.
In relation to where the lands are habitually open to the public, Mr Mannion said on his visit there was no ‘formal or informal’ parking to indicate the lands are accessed from the public road, no stiles and no footpaths or marked trails within the area to be fenced. He found that the site has not been habitually open to the public and found the proposed fence does not lose its exemption
In his recommendation to the board he found that the erection of a wooden post and wire fence is exempted development.
However, the board found that the 5.5km fence will constitute development which will have impact on the SAC and will have an indirect impact by the potentially more intensive manner of sheep farming as a result.
It therefore found the fence would not avail of exemptions and decided the erection of the fence is not exempted development.