Lattin wall plans quashed - appeal

An Bord Pleanála overturns Tipperary Co. Council planning decision

Eoin Kelleher


Eoin Kelleher


Lattin wall plans quashed - appeal

Plans to build a wall in Lattin, have been turned down by An Bord Pleanála.

Tom Glasheen applied for permission to construct a new wall, of varying heights, on or very close to the North-West boundary where his land adjoins the public road, at Ballynagleragh, Lattin. It was planned that “the proposed wall will run approximately perpendicular to the public road.”

Third party appeals were submitted by Hannah Crowe, owner of the adjacent cottage to the northwest, her sister Mary Crowe and sister and nephew Rita Curran Crowe and James Crowe.

The grounds of appeal includes: “The height of wall will block light and view. Concern that it will affect heavy dashing on the gable end of the cottage built in 1800's. Interference with surface water run off.

“Impact on property value. If a wall is to be constructed it should not exceed the existing wall. Proposal for an access gate at points B and C, which was not originally applied for, is highly objectionable.

“Property boundaries (are) unsure.”

The planning inspector involved in the case recommended that the application be turned down.

Tipperary County Council granted planning permission, subject to six conditions on July 18th.

On August 8th last, this decision was appealed to An Bord Pleanala.

On November 30th, An Bord Pleanala upheld the Inspector’s recommendation, stating: “Having regard to the configuration of the site of the proposed development, to the planning history of the site... and to the location of the proposed wall between two established hedgerow boundaries, it is considered that the proposed development of a wall at this location has not been justified, would interfere with the established screen hedgerow to the southeast and would give rise to ongoing difficulties in terms of access and maintenance, thereby seriously injuring the residential amenities of adjoining property. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

Full decision at