Mayo woman refused planning permission to build house beside her sister

A WESTPORT woman was refused planning permission to build a house beside her sister's home because the site was considered too far from her family home.

Mayo County Council refused planning permission to Aisling Grimes to build a house on a rural site at Ardogammon, Westport as she did not demonstrate a housing need for the area despite being a native to the Aughagower parish where the site is located.

Ms Grimes had proposed to construct a private dwelling house, domestic garage and effluent treatment system on a site adjacent to a dwelling where her sister, Ciara Grimes currently resides. Permission was given by Ciara Grimes and Pat Kelly, the legal owners of the proposed site to allow the applicant to build.

READ: Mayo people face 'uphill battle' to get planning permission in rural areas

In the planning report, the site was identified as 'Rura Areas Under Strong Urban Influence' in the Mayo County Development Plan and in order to build single houses, applicants are required to demonstrate a social or economic link to the area in which they wish to build. Applicants must also have 'a genuine housing need' and these includes farmers, their sons or daughters; sons, daughters or other relatives of non-farming persons who have spent a period of their lives living in the general rural area; returning immigrants who spent a period of their lives living in the rural area; and people involved in farming activity.

READ: Shock revelation after Mayo Gardaí stop speeding car on N17

The planners found that because Ms Grimes' family home is located in Lanmore, Lecanvey which is approximately 7km from the site, 'it is not considered that the applicant is not from the 'general rural area' in which they propose to build'.

There were no basic concerns regarding the design of the proposed dwelling or its affect on the environment but the planners found she 'does not comply with the housing need criteria' as she is 'not from the general rural area in which they propose to build'.

“On this basis a refusal of permission will be recommended,” the report stated.

Planning permission was refused on these grounds with planners stating that if granted the development would 'constitute haphazard development in a rural area, would militate against the preservation of the rural environment, would lead to demands for the uneconomic provision of public services and communal facilities, would contribute to the erosion of the visual and environmental amenity of the area, and therefore would interfere with the character of the landscape at this location which it is necessary to preserve'.