This article is from page 12 of the 2007-10-30 edition of The Clare People. OCR mistakes are to be expected so download the original SWF or the rendered page 12 JPG
AN BORD Pleanala has overturned Clare County Council’s “locals only” rule to allow a German couple build anew home and organic herb farm in east Clare.
Earlier this year, the council re- fused planning permission to Tobias and Agnes Oertel to develop a herb farm and a home near Tuamgraney.
Permission was refused on the basis that the site is located in an area that is under pressure from urban devel- opment where it is council policy to limit single rural houses for perma- nent occupation of rural people with a genuine requirement for housing.
The planner’s report concluded that as the Oertels had not lived in the area for the requisite 10 years, their appli- cation could not be permitted. They had also been operating the farm at this location for a number of years without needing to live on the farm.
In their submission to the council, the Oertels stated that for the past three and a half years they found the separation of their farming work from their rented living accommo- dation increasingly difficult as the more the business developed, the more challenging their home situa- tion became.
But the council refused permis- sion on the grounds that the proposal would be contrary to proper planning as the Oertels had failed to satisfy
criteria for local rural housing need with regard to the length of time that they have resided in Tuamgraney and the small scale of the farm on which
their justification for housing need was based.
However, the appeals board over- turned the council’s decision because the applicants had demonstrated lo- cal housing need and the proposal would not constitute urban generated development. Neither would it ma- terially contravene the development plan nor would it seriously injure the amenities of the area or of property in the vicinity.
The board noted that the plan- ning authority refused permission because the proposed development would constitute a material contra- vention of the Development Plan but having regard to the provisions of the Planning and Development Act, the board considered that planning permission should be granted for the proposed development.
“In deciding not to accept the in- spector’s recommendation to refuse permission, the board considered the rural based need for a dwelling at this location had been demonstrated by the applicants in the planning ap- plication and appeal documentation, ’ the board ruling concluded.