Core Refusal Reason
Non-compliance with Rural Housing Objective RHO-4 due to the failure to justify the site selection over alternative locations and the resulting negative impact on a sensitive, exposed coastal landscape.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The applicant failed to sufficiently demonstrate that alternative, less sensitive locations on the family landholding were unavailable, which is a mandatory requirement for housing in coastal areas under Objective RHO-4.
- Given the open, exposed, and scenic nature of the coastal site, the proposed development would negatively impact the landscape character and constitute haphazard development.
- The proposal would militate against the preservation of the rural environment and interfere with the character of the landscape, rendering it contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Objective RHO 4Policy Area 1Remaining Rural Areas
Decision Document Summary
Grace O’Malley proposed the construction of a dwelling house, garage, and wastewater treatment system at Carrowteige, Ballina, a scenic coastal location identified as 'Policy Area 1'. Following a request for further information, the Planning Authority concluded that the applicant had not adequately justified the necessity of building at this specific sensitive location over other available family lands. The application was refused because it contravenes Objective RHO-4 of the Mayo County Develop...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.