Save to pipeline
Connected planning records

Planning case 2561667

Galway County Council · 2561667

Latest linked evidence

Planning appeal received · 2026-08-14

501887

Open official source

This 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

What the documents establish

Government document review

Galway County Council refused the 16-apartment proposal on 29 July 2026; the Commission appeal is pending. The inspected specifications are application and further-information proposals, not an approved construction package.

4 official documents inspected · Checked 2026-09-05 · Official file index

Later services drawing names a bypass interceptor model or equivalent

Proposed in application · Trusky West north-site services layout, P03 dated 27 May 2026

What the evidence says
Drawing 12182-2001 P03 specifies a Class 1 bypass petrol interceptor serving an impermeable area of 1,850 m²: Kingspan Klargester NSBP004 or similar approved.

Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: gives a named reference model and treatment catchment for checking a drainage package.

What is not established
The or-similar qualification remains explicit. This is not an installed product, exclusive supplier appointment or evidence of final approval.

Inspect the evidence

Proposed Services Layout · p.1
KINGSPAN KLARGESTER NSBP004 OR SIMILAR APPROVED · Issued 2026-05-27 · 12182-2001 P03: raised pedestrian crossing added; received 4 June 2026; received 2026-06-04 · Checked 2026-09-05

KINGSPAN KLARGESTER NSBP004 OR SIMILAR APPROVED

P03 defines minimum attenuation storage and loading detail

Proposed in application · May 2026 further-information drawing, not a national or development-phase total

What the evidence says
The later services drawing specifies a minimum 66.35 m³ attenuation tank with 100% storage coefficient, suitable for vehicle loading, an impermeable geomembrane, vent and inspection access, and 150 mm of 6F2 stone capping beneath its footprint. Its hydrobrake note gives a discharge of 2.0 litres per second.

Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: identifies storage, lining, access and supporting-groundworks requirements.

What is not established
The earlier report contains both 69.12 m³ and 66.35 m³. The later drawing supports the stated minimum but does not explain the earlier discrepancy. Construction approval, product choice and final hydraulic verification remain unestablished.

Inspect the evidence

Proposed Services Layout · p.1
100% STORAGE COEFFICIENT · Issued 2026-05-27 · 12182-2001 P03: raised pedestrian crossing added; received 4 June 2026; received 2026-06-04 · Checked 2026-09-05

100% STORAGE COEFFICIENT

A2 target with heating and ventilation choices still to be selected

Proposed in application · October 2025 lifecycle strategy for the apartment proposal

What the evidence says
The lifecycle report targets a minimum A2 BER. It lists natural ventilation, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, air-to-water heat pumps and exhaust-air heat pumps among technologies being considered, with the final combination to be decided during design.

Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: identifies the services options requiring a later coordinated design decision.

What is not established
These are alternatives or considerations, not a combined committed MEP system. No achieved BER, equipment manufacturer or installed capacity is demonstrated.

Inspect the evidence

Building Lifecycle Report: Trusky West, Barna · p.12
minimum of A2 BER Rating · Issued 2025-10-08 · Project 25127; no revision number established; received 2025-11-13 · Checked 2026-09-05

minimum of A2 BER Rating

Building Lifecycle Report: Trusky West, Barna · p.14
Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery · Issued 2025-10-08 · Project 25127; no revision number established; received 2025-11-13 · Checked 2026-09-05

Mechanical Ventilation Heat Recovery

Stone and render are stated; window construction is inconsistent

Proposed in application · External finishes and lifecycle discussion in the October 2025 report

What the evidence says
The lifecycle report describes stone and render and powder-coated steel balcony/balustrade elements. Its window prose refers to aluminium double glazing while its table refers to uPVC/Alu-clad windows and doors.

Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: provides a starting external-material palette while identifying a window specification to reconcile.

What is not established
No single final window material is asserted. The report’s maintenance claims are not independently endorsed, and later detailed finishes approval or procurement has not been established.

Inspect the evidence

Building Lifecycle Report: Trusky West, Barna · p.16
render treatments and some stone detailing · Issued 2025-10-08 · Project 25127; no revision number established; received 2025-11-13 · Checked 2026-09-05

render treatments and some stone detailing
Remaining document questions
  • Which later official decision, approved detail or revision changes these source-specific findings?
  • Has a phase-specific official record established the selected equipment or installed specification?

Selected pages of 4 government-published PDFs were visually inspected. Four PDFs visually checked on listed pages. The planner report was downloaded and text searched but is not counted as visually inspected. Proposals do not establish procurement or installed work.

Source history

Timeline

  1. Planning application received

    2561667

  2. Planning decision

    2561667

    Permission refused

  3. Planning appeal received

    501887

    Official source · View Commission case

What this record establishes

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.

Complete formal refusal grounds · 3 grounds · 2026-07-29

The council’s formal grounds for this decision. Planner assessment and later appeal outcomes are separate.

  1. It is considered that the development as proposed will overly intensify the scale of built development in the immediate area and is not in keeping with much of the surrounding built up established footprint on these lands zoned for Residential Existing use. The proposed density significantly exceeds the density as set out in the Core Strategy and DM Standard 2 (Table 15.1 Residential Density) of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 and also exceeds the density range set out in the Sustainable and Compact Settlement Guidelines for Planning Authorities. The Planning Authority considers that the density as proposed is too high as an appropriate incremental infill residential development having regard to prevailing development consisting primarily of one-off dwellings surrounding the site to the south, north and east. The development as proposed is not considered appropriate infill residential development in accordance with the principles of good design and protection of existing residential amenity and therefore, contrary to DM Standard 2, Policy Objective BMSP1, Policy Objective GCMA4,Policy Objective PM8 and Policy Objective UL1 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028, and accordingly, to grant the development as proposed, would be contrary to the principles of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

    Official final decision · PDF page 2
  2. In the absence of satisfactory demonstration of required setback of the adjoining northern front boundary behind the sightline envelope, in conjunction with lack thereof of neighbouring consent, this restricted visibility splay remains outside the control of applicant and therefore, sightlines for the proposed development are not deemed in accordance with DM Standard 28 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028. In addition, the proposed visibility splay from 2.0m x-distance set back further highlights the visibility constraints whereby vehicular movements are expected to encroach into the public road to seek forward visibility. The horizontal and vertical envelope of visibility at 2.0m set back further remains restricted as shown to traverse third-party lands in a northern direction. Accordingly, it is considered that if permitted as proposed that the development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard, or obstruction of road users or otherwise, would be contrary to Policy Objective NNR2, DM Standard 28, and DM Standard 33a of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028, and therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

    Official final decision · PDF page 2
  3. Whilst having regard to the rural road context, the scale of established entrances, generation of overlapping visibility splays in conjunction with un-demarcated carriageway road marking from northern approaches and whereby cumulatively the potential of traffic conflicts arise, in particular to vulnerable road users safety, it is considered that if permitted as proposed that the development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard, or obstruction of road users or otherwise, contrary to Policy Objective NNR2, DM Standard 28, and DM Standard 33a of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

    Official final decision · PDF page 2

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 248d20a2ad4fa0c404e76915034cce12aa3a99e9644574e2bf99e14ddbc833a1