Roscommon County Council · 2660258
Latest linked evidence
501861
Open official sourceThis page connects records for one planning case. Separate permissions, amendments and phases may belong to a wider development. A notified commencement date does not confirm that building work started.
Reviewed build intelligence
Government document review
Council refusal dated 17 July 2026; subsequent Commission appeal 501861 remains separate. Original May technical reports describe the refused proposal, not authorised or installed works.
3 official documents inspected · Checked 2026-09-06 · Official file index
Council refusal under appeal; proposed works not established as authorised · Roscommon 2660258; three separately described commercial spaces
What the evidence says
The 17 July 2026 notification refuses permission for a 2,358 m² foodstore, a separate 145.8 m² café/restaurant and a 145.4 m² retail unit. The signed chief executive order agrees, although its catalogue filename includes “Grant”. Commission case 501861 records the subsequent appeal. This is a refused proposal under appeal, not a granted retail development.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: uses the actual decision rather than a misleading document-index label.
What is not established
The appeal outcome, final permitted design and commencement are unverified.
Monksland foodstore: notification of refusal · p.1
decided to REFUSE TO GRANT PERMISSION · Issued 2026-07-17 · Two refusal reasons; signed CEO pages 3–4 independently corroborate refusal despite misleading catalogue label · Checked 2026-09-06
decided to REFUSE TO GRANT PERMISSION
Council refusal under appeal; proposed works not established as authorised · Original May 2026 surface-water strategy for the refused scheme
What the evidence says
The May engineering report states approximately 512 m³ of required storage in a modular chamber system within a stone-filled bed. It separately describes about 12 m³ of stone storage, emergency gullies and a Class 1 bypass separator. These are source-stated design components; they are not summed here or treated as installed capacity.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: identifies the civil-engineering package while preserving separate storage components.
What is not established
Complete hydraulic reconciliation, any appeal revision, selected chamber product and installation are unverified.
Monksland foodstore: engineering services report · p.14
approximately 512 m³ · Issued May 2026 (month only) · May 2026 cover; received 27 May; selected narrative sections, not all calculation appendices · Checked 2026-09-06
approximately 512 m³
Council refusal under appeal; proposed works not established as authorised · May report sections 4.2.3–4.2.4; paving, attenuation and outfall interface
What the evidence says
The report proposes a 200 mm stone sub-base with 30% voids beneath permeable paving, connected through 150 mm perforated pipes. It limits infiltration to the attenuation tank and proposes a Hydrobrake control upstream of the existing local network, at a stated Qbar of 2.0 L/s. This is the proposed drainage arrangement, not demonstrated discharge performance.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: connects the paving specification to its actual drainage destination.
What is not established
Final acceptance, installed control model and measured performance are unverified.
Monksland foodstore: engineering services report · p.15
Qbar is 2.0 L/s · Issued May 2026 (month only) · May 2026 cover; received 27 May; selected narrative sections, not all calculation appendices · Checked 2026-09-06
Qbar is 2.0 L/s
Monksland foodstore: engineering services report · p.13
Permeable paving · Issued May 2026 (month only) · May 2026 cover; received 27 May; selected narrative sections, not all calculation appendices · Checked 2026-09-06
Permeable paving
Council refusal under appeal; proposed works not established as authorised · May 2026 modelled external lighting parts list
What the evidence says
The lighting report lists 22 Veelite Durostar fittings at 50 W and two Veelite Chi fittings at a stated 51.5 W. Those quantities belong to the modelled external lighting scheme. They identify proposed equipment families, not a purchase, installation or independently approved lighting schedule.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: retains useful named lighting equipment with the correct design-stage qualification.
What is not established
The final product selection, any appeal revision, installed quantity and commissioning are unverified.
Monksland foodstore: lighting impact assessment · p.10
22 Pieces · Issued 2026-05-21 · Cover dated 21 May; revision 01 table dated 19 May; received 27 May; Durostar temperature fields conflict · Checked 2026-09-06
22 Pieces
Council refusal under appeal; proposed works not established as authorised · Conflicting fields in the same Durostar parts-list row
What the evidence says
The same Durostar row labels the product “4K” but identifies its fitting as LED 2700K. The Chi row also states 2700K. The Durostar colour temperature is therefore held as a source conflict; neither value is presented as the final installed specification.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: prevents an apparently precise product label from becoming an unsupported final specification.
What is not established
A corrected schedule or final approved colour-temperature selection has not been established.
Monksland foodstore: lighting impact assessment · p.10
Fitting: 1 x LED 2700K Ra70 · Issued 2026-05-21 · Cover dated 21 May; revision 01 table dated 19 May; received 27 May; Durostar temperature fields conflict · Checked 2026-09-06
Fitting: 1 x LED 2700K Ra70
Selected pages of 3 government-published PDFs were visually inspected. 117 index rows retained; four PDFs accessed. Selected pages of the three supporting PDFs and the corroborating CEO were visually inspected. The CEO is retained corroboration, not an additional supporting PDF in the public bundle. Proposals do not establish procurement or installed work.
Source history
2660258
2660258
Permission refused
501861
Only exact linked records appear here. A missing appeal, commencement or completion entry means that evidence has not been established on this page. It does not prove that the event never happened.
Planning scale and individual notice or phase quantities remain separate. Notice quantities are not added into a development total or completion percentage.