22271

CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSIING DEVELOPMENT OF 32 NO. DETACHED DWELLINGS (9 NO. SINGLE STOREY BUNGALOWS, 6 NO. DORMER/STOREY AND A HALF AND 17 NO. TWO STOREY HOUSE TYPES); PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ACCESS TO COTTAGE ROAD, AND PEDESTRIAN/CYCLE ACCESS TO BREAFFY HOUSE RESORT; CONNECTION TO WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE, INCLUDING THE PROVISION OF A WASTEWATER PUMPING STATION AND RISING MAIN TO CONNECT TO EXISTING NETWORK IN THE AREA; ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT AND WORKS INCLUDING SURFACE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE (COLLECTION, ATTENUATION AND GROUND INFILTRATION), CULVERTING OF EXISTING STREAM, HARD AND SOFT LANDSCAPING, ROADS AND FOOTPATHS, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE AMENITY AND OPEN SPACES, CAR PARKING, BOUNDARY TREATMENTS, PUBLIC LIGHTING AND ALL OTHER ANCILLARY WORKS ABOVE AND BELOW GROUND

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposal constitutes an overdevelopment of unzoned, unserviced rural land under strong urban influence, lacking demonstrated housing need and posing significant risks regarding traffic safety and flooding.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The development represents an inappropriate overdevelopment of unzoned rural land that fails to demonstrate a genuine rural-generated housing need and would militate against the preservation of the rural environment.
  • The proposed access onto a local route connecting to the N60, in the absence of a Traffic Impact Assessment, and the site's location within a flood risk area without a site-specific assessment, pose unacceptable risks to public safety.
  • The scale, height, and bulk of the 32-unit scheme would be visually obtrusive in this rural setting, depreciating the amenity of the area and materially contravening the Mayo County Development Plan 2014-2020.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Paragraph 16.1.2Objective FS-01Section 2.3.1UH-01Appendix 9

Decision Document Summary

Tirawley Ltd proposed a housing development of 32 dwelling units on a 3.375ha site at Cottage Road, Breaffy, Castlebar, located on the outskirts of Breaffy village within the Breaffy House Resort. The application was refused by Mayo County Council as the site is unzoned, unserviced, and situated in an area under strong urban influence where the applicant failed to establish a specific housing need. Furthermore, the council cited concerns regarding overdevelopment, potential traffic hazards due t...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.