An Taisce appeals planning permission for councillor’s son

A decision by Mayo County Council to grant planning permission near Mulranny for a house on family land has been appealed by An Taisce.
Mayo County Council’s granted planning permission to Padraic Holmes to build a dwelling house at Newfield, Mulranny, at the end of June. However, An Taisce, an environmental body, appealed the decision to An Bord PleanΡla citing a number of reasons.
In its appeal to the planning authority, An Taisce claimed that the chosen site location will impact on the surrounding landscape, and it found ‘no grounds in the decision by Mayo County Council to justify the proposal’.
It claimed that there was a failure to meet the requirements of the test for site suitability of a single rural house; a failure to consider to scope alternative siting opportunities on the landholding or alternative housing opportunities in the area prior to the decision to apply for a new build; and a failure to visually assess the impact of this development in a sensitive location.
During the planning process, planners had looked at the Holmes family farm holding, which mostly borders the N59 road between Newport and Mulranny, a no go zone for planning permission.  Given the restrictions this placed on the applicant, the planners agreed that the site in question was the one most suitable for this house, which is to be located between two houses already build by the applicants brother and sister and their families, and which is nearby the Holmes family home.

Proposed site
Mr Holmes, a son of Independent councillor Michael Holmes, was told by his father that he could apply to build on family land close to where his brother and sister have already been granted permission to build.
The proposed site is located south of the N59 near Tiernaur, 136 metres north of the shoreline, which is part of the Clew Bay Complex SAC. In granting permission, Mayo County County stated that the proposal would be acceptable, as it clusters the new development with those already permitted for other family members.
An Taisce state that the elevated nature of the site ‘may detract from both the views across the bay and possibly from the N59’. It added that a more suitable location may be available for the development of a dwelling house.
“Due to the sensitivity of the surrounding landscape, it would be inappropriate to locate the proposed development on a site that An Taisce consider does not have the capacity to absorb the proposed development, without injuring the surrounding landscape character,” it stated in its appeal. The case is due to be decided at the end of November.