The Secretary,

An Bord Pleanala,

Irish Life Building,

Lower Abbey Street,

Dublin 1

18 August, 1999

Appeal Against Grant of Planning Permission

Local Authority: Cork County Council

Planning Reference number: 98/3655

Date of notification of intention to grant: 19 July, 1999

Location: The Rectory Restaurant, Glandore, Co. Cork

Proposed Development: Construction of extensions to existing restaurant premises for use as hotel & provision of additional car parking

Grounds of appeal

1. Architectural Concerns

The proposed development involves the substantial expansion by the construction of two wings to a house know locally as the Rectory. The building is in fact one of three Country Houses built at the turn of the 18th century which dominate the approach from the sea to Glandore Harbour and are conspicuous in many of the fine views in an area protected for its landscape quality in the County Development Plan West Cork [Map 7.2 Glandore: photograph attached].

Two of these houses, including this one, are listed in the Sites and Monuments Record of County Cork [Vol. 2 , 142-28 & 94; 12198/3520 & 12190/3516]. Accordingly great care should be taken in examining their history and importance before permitting a development that would change the architectural character of the houses, given the very rare survival of three neighbouring visually, culturally, and historically related houses in County Cork.

We can find no record of any conservation architect's report or any consideration by either a national authority or the local authority of the architectural significance of the proposal. We note that the original frontage of the house would be obscured by the new wings and that, given the materials and design proposed, the architectural integrity of these three historic County Houses – one recently restored after significant research – would be lost to the nation’s heritage.

2. County Development Plan

The County Development Plan states specifically that "The high ground both to the east and west of the village are visually vulnerable and development here will be restricted to existing agriculture uses. [County Development Plan West Cork, 7.2 Glandore, 7.2.5] The current proposal does not accord with this provision of the Plan.

"Glandore", the County Development Plan West Cork further states, "has limited capacity to accommodate new development, due to topographical conditions and visual vulnerability. Glandore’s small scale character is one of its main attractions which would be destroyed by large scale development." [7.2.3]

Water, sewage, and parking are all given as reasons for Glandore’s limited development capacity. There appears to be no provision made to augment the water supply in view of the additional demand created by the proposed development and no funding appears to have been allocated for the additional sewage treatment which the Plan states is already required. [County Development Plan West Cork 7.2.7]

We would question the applicant’s estimate of an additional 50 traffic movements a day as being an accurate estimate of the total traffic generated by the proposal. Nor can we find on the files any estimate of the existing number of traffic movements due to the restaurant, which may be considerable given the frequency of functions in West Cork.

3. Planning History

The existing number of traffic movements should be contained in an application to convert what was a dwelling house into a restaurant, but we can find no record of such an application. We understand that as late as 1988 the dwelling was used as the residence of a mink farmer. The applicants, who appear to have owned the Marine Hotel in Glandore, purchased the property subsequent to that time and initially restored only the fabric of the building, according to their statements on the planning file.

In 1992 the planning files shows they were required to apply for planning permission for "retention of entrance to dwelling house." [92/2876] The change from dwelling house to restaurant must therefore have taken place subsequent to this date. It is a change of use requiring planning permission under the Planning Acts.

What is the existing planning status of the applicant’s current use of the building? We could find no record in the local authority files of any change of use to a restaurant at this location. While the five year period for enforcement may now have lapsed, if the structure is being used for an unauthorized use then the law does not permit the local authority to grant any permission for any works of any kind until the existing use of the structure is authorised. In fact we understand that even repairs can not legally be made to a structure being used for an unauthorised purpose. The apparent use of this building for a public purpose without development control consent also raises serious questions relating to fire safety certificates and public health regulations.

We would like clarification as to what the applicants mean when they suggest the Local Authority planner knows the restaurant "inside and out". We find this peculiar and in need of detailed clarification.

4. Traffic and Access

Even for the current application, the local authority does not appear to have either completed a traffic survey or to have discussed this overall impact of the development outside the site boundaries, given the very narrow public road and its use as a pedestrian walking route. The file appears to begin with a tacit agreement to permit the proposal, the intervention by the planning authority being restricted to minor architectural roof details and matters of parking.

Within the site boundaries the planning history appears to begin with the application for retention of a new access road [92/2876] granted by the local authority on condition that the original "entrance be closed up to the Council's satisfaction". This condition would have permitted a small realignment to the public road which would in itself have been both an amenity for the community and an augmentation of the facilities to support its main source of income through tourism.

This condition [Condition 10] was appealed to An Bord Pleanala and the condition was lifted. We note the appellants claimed to your Board during that appeal they wished only to use this entrance for their "private use" and they were "prepared to seal it off from the public at the house end of the entrance. We would be prepared to lock these gates to your satisfaction after use and print "PRIVATE" on them if allowed to use them for our convenience."

This entrance remains the main entrance for traffic coming from Glandore Village. Even if it were restricted to one way traffic, this entrance continues to prevent the minor realignment which would improve the amenities of the area and remains a cause of concern to local residents who placed their objection on the local authority planning file.

5. Parking

Because of the restricted nature of the site, this proposal shares the problem with Glandore noted in the Development Plan: "Parking facilities are limited and incapable of meeting high season demand. Due to its topography it will be difficult to provide additional parking." [County Development Plan West Cork, Glandore, 7.2.8]

Part of the additional parking required for this proposal has been provided for by spaces along the appealed entrance road, exacerbating the existing difficulties and in spite of the concerns expressed by the planners that the original parking proposals were "too tight".

6. Previous permission on or adjacent to this site

It appears to us that there is a further planning problem that has not been addressed by the local authority. While the relevant file in the local authority office is now on micro-film and the maps are noted as not being included in this micro-film, the footprint of 94/3294, granted on 22 October, 1996 and therefore still in force, is said to cover the walled garden, part of which is has now been granted as a parking area for the proposed extension. The current application appears to make no reference to the traffic generated by the substantial construction permitted by 94/3294, the parking for this development, or the location of the septic tank and percolation area required at this location under this earlier permission.

If the two permissions overlap then the developer may only build one. If they do not overlap, the developer would be within his rights to build both structures, even though the current proposal effectively appears to "land lock" the previous permission.

The planning authority appears not to have considered this aspect of the planning history and its implications. Would it not be logical, if the applicant is looking for space to house guests in an area where considerable development constraints are present, that he look first to the structure which has already been granted planning permission?

If the applicant develops both his planning permissions, would this not constitute over development of the site? Would the end result of these permissions, taken together, be exactly what the Development Plan is speaking of when it notes that "Glandore’s small scale character is one of its main attractions which would be destroyed by large scale developments"? [County Development Plan West Cork 7.2.3]

Conclusion

To properly determine the orderly development of this important architectural building in its sensitive and protected environment, we respectful request An Bord Pleanala to refuse permission for this proposal until the planning status of the existing restaurant is determined, matters relating to the 1996 permission have been resolved, and the current proposal re-examined with the questions of parking, access, traffic within and without the site, water, sewage, and over development have each received full and proper impartial and professional consideration.