RefusedDecided 13 August 2018Clare County Council

Caherycahill, Liscannor, Co. Clare

Planning application 17844
DecisionRefused
Decided13 August 2018
Application typePERMISSION
Source documents11

Site

What is on file

1refusal reasons0conditions8nearby records

Proposed development

Application description published by Clare County Council.
For development which will consist of (I) demolition of existing four-bedroom, part-single storey. part-dormer dwelling known as "Cahilly Lodge" (257sq.m) and construction of a replacement three-bedroom, two-storey dwelling ( 245sq.m); decommissioning of existing substandard septic tank and installation of a new on-site EPA compliant wastewatertreatment system to serve the new dwelling, (ii) alterations to access arrangement and roadside boundary treatment to "Cahilly Lodge" comprising the closing up of 1 no. vehicular entrance, upgrade of the second vehicular entrance ( on the southern end ) and provision of new rural style boundary treatment. The upgraded vehicular entrance will cater for a single shared entrance from the local public road to serve the replacement dwelling and the existing dwelling to the rear / west, known as "Sky Lodge" ( dwelling approved under Reg. Ref. 15-169 ). The new access arrangements will also include a new internal driveway and extended on-curtilage car parking on the northern side. Npote that the existing vehicular entrance on the public road, which serves the dwelling "Sky Lodge" to the rear, will be discontinued as an access for that dwelling, (iii) The application also includes revisions to site landscaping for both dwellings;and all ancillary works necessary to facilitate the development

Application and appeal history

Structured appeal stages, outcomes and source documents currently tied to this application.

No indexed appeal history

No structured appeal case is tied to this application. This means no appeal is indexed, not that an appeal is impossible.

Decision details

Core application dates and identifiers from the public planning record.

Planning analysis

Refusal reasons and planning conditions extracted from the public decision file.

Refusal reasons

Visual Amenity

Elevated siting relative to the R478 Scenic Route, combined with the design, form, and scale of the proposed dwelling, would create an unduly prominent feature. Cumulative impact with the adjacent dwelling would negatively alter the character of the exposed coastal rural area.

CDP 13.2 (Settled Landscapes), CDP 13.7 (Scenic Routes)
would form an unduly prominent feature at this location and result in a form of development that would negatively alter the character of this exposed coastal rural area

Conditions

No conditions

No conditions are on record for this application yet.

Planning a project near Caherycahill, Liscannor, Co. Clare?

Get a site risk brief with the local decision pattern and up to 80 detailed nearby comparables (40 refusals and 40 grants), including extracted reasons and source links. €29 incl. VAT, PDF by email.

Inside the decision file

Extracts from the council's own decision documents for this application — 65 pages of searchable text on file.
Chief Executives Order2 pages indexed
CLARE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 (AS AMENDED) Order No: Reference Number: Name of Applicant: Address: Application Received: Further Information Received: Additional Information Received: Nature of Application: Location of Development: “Ists3 P17/844 Domhnal & Elaine Slattery c/o David H Leahy...
Planners Report14 pages indexed
C la re Pl a nn ng Au th or ity -I ns pe ct io n Pu rp os es O nl y!
Planners Report8 pages indexed
C la re Pl a nn ng Au th or ity -I ns pe ct io n Pu rp os es O nl y!
Read the full decision filePro members can search and read every indexed page of this file with the AI research assistant — planner's reasoning, conditions, and precedent across 10 documents.

Source documents

Original council portal records and source PDFs where available.

Nearby precedent

Similar nearby applications linked to this planning decision.
Get up to 80 detailed nearby comparables in a site risk brief →