Planning refusal over Portroe houses

Council received over 50 submissions

Tipperary Co Council has refused planning permission over a controversial housing development in the village of Portroe.

Subgero Ltd had sought to carry out a number of works at the Schoolhouse Row site, where 22 dwellings were built two decades ago. Originally intended as holiday homes, the two-storey semi-detached and terraced dwellings at the top of the hill were never occupied.

Subgero sought retention permission for the as-constructed surface water infrastructure, footpaths within the green area, and boundary screen walls around the sides and rear of houses 18–22. Permission was sought for alterations to the approved site development works, namely increasing the approved width of footpaths and parking bays, and general revisions to the public lighting layout, roads, paths and parking to improve the site layout.

In correspondence with the council, Limerick-based architect Michael Barker said the purpose of the application was to enable completion of the “substantially complete” development of 22 houses.

Planning permission for the houses was granted in 2003 following an appeal to an Bord Pleanála. Market conditions were cited as the reason for the houses not being completed. The local authority refused an application to extend the duration of planning permission in 2009.

OBJECTIONS

The new application to Tipperary Co Council met with 52 valid submissions as well as numerous follow-up submissions in response to further information provided by the applicant. Local TD Alan Kelly, Cathaoirleach of Tipperary Co Council John Carroll, and Councillors Fiona Bonfield, Phyll Bugler and Pamela Quirke O’Meara joined local residents in objecting to the plan on numerous grounds.

Traffic safety was a key concern, with many submitting to the council that the village has become a lot busier since Schoolhouse Row was originally planned. Other concerns ranged from impact on the school to issues of ownership, planning compliance and the intended use of the houses.

“These structures were constructed as holiday-type homes and lay derelict for almost two decades,” Cllr Carroll wrote in expressing “very strong opposition” to the application. He said the houses “do not accord to modern residential standards and would present great difficulty for any local authority to take ownership or give approval to this type of development within very close proximity to the local school at Portroe village.

“This development/construction site has been the subject of ongoing unauthorised developments over the past number of years and there has been little or no contact with public representatives and planning authority to address any of the issues.”

DEMOLITION

Deputy Kelly cited a Government recommendation from 2015 that Schoolhouse Row “be put on a list of estates for demolition”.

“It has been open to the climate for two decades, been vandalised and looted, has never had services provided to it, has been the subject of a derelict site notice and, given the length of time that has passed, it is difficult to see how the units in the development are even inhabitable in any safe way,” Deputy Kelly stated.

“I am all in favour of proper housing and want to see private development in Portroe for future generations, but I cannot see how this application will address the multiple and complex issues that this development has. I would support any future application on this development that indeed deals with these issues comprehensively. This absolutely won’t.”

Having considered the case over a lengthy planning process, the council last month decided to refuse permission due to “the absence of clear, consistent and complete information in relation to the existing, as-constructed surface water infrastructure”.

The council also cited a failure to demonstrate that site entrance arrangements could be implemented in accordance with the original planning permission, as well as a “failure to submit and agree proposals for traffic calming measures on the public roadway as required under the parent permission”.

The council concluded that the proposed development would “endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users, and would set an undesirable precedent for similar development”.