Carlow County Council · 2560158
Latest linked evidence
501875
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
Carlow refused this portal-frame industrial proposal on 13 July 2026 because of the priority-junction access arrangement rather than a roundabout. Commission cases 501869 and 501875 concern the same council reference. The technical details remain submitted proposals, not approved or installed specifications.
4 official documents inspected · Checked 2026-09-05 · Official file index
Proposed in application · June 2025 planning drawing for Carlow 2560158; council refusal is under appeal
What the evidence says
Drawing J859-PL02-001 labels a proposed floor area of 2,061 square metres. Its wall specification names single-skin Kingspan or Tegral cladding, or similar, on 180 mm galvanised metal purlins, in Merlin Grey. Aluminium gutters and downpipes are to match the cladding.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: identifies the proposed envelope package while preserving the alternative-brand wording.
What is not established
No selected cladding profile, thickness, insulation build-up, supplier contract or completed warehouse is established. The steel-frame design is expressly preliminary.
O’Brien Road industrial warehouse: plan, elevations and section · p.1
Kingspan / Tegral · Issued June 2025 (month only) · J859-PL02-001; planning drawing only; received 9 June 2025 · Checked 2026-09-05
Kingspan / Tegral
Proposed in application · Preliminary June 2025 warehouse floor specification
What the evidence says
The same drawing proposes a 150 mm 30N20 power-floated concrete floor with A142 mesh, over a radon barrier, 50 mm sand blinding and compacted hardcore in layers no thicker than 225 mm. It calls for joints at six-metre centres in both directions.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: provides a concrete slab and sub-base package from an exact planning drawing.
What is not established
No final engineer design, concrete volume, ground assessment, construction order or installed slab was verified.
O’Brien Road industrial warehouse: plan, elevations and section · p.1
A142 mesh · Issued June 2025 (month only) · J859-PL02-001; planning drawing only; received 9 June 2025 · Checked 2026-09-05
A142 mesh
Proposed in application · Revision A lighting calculation drawing 26-05-04-01A, submitted with further information
What the evidence says
The 7 May 2026 VeeLite schedule lists 4 Metro streetlights at 134 W, 10 at 68 W and 2 at 36 W, plus 4 Aktra LED floodlights at 120 W and 2 at 40 W. All five rows specify 3000 K and the schedule totals 22 fittings.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: identifies a defined exterior-lighting proposal for the access, parking and warehouse areas.
What is not established
These are modelled luminaires, not installed equipment. No approved lighting revision or purchase order is established. Product brochures list broader options, which are not added to the site schedule.
O’Brien Road industrial unit: VeeLite lighting calculation layout · p.1
Total Quantity: 22 · Issued 2026-05-07 · Drawing 26-05-04-01A, Revision A; received 8 May 2026 · Checked 2026-09-05
Total Quantity: 22
Drawing and note differ · Internal text-versus-drawing discrepancy on June 2025 sheet J859-PL02-001
What the evidence says
The drawing specification calls for three electrically operated roller shutters, 6 m wide by 5 m high, supplied with three-phase power. The plan and front elevation show four large shutter openings. The candidate therefore leaves the final door quantity unresolved.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: flags a concrete discrepancy that matters to door supply and electrical design.
What is not established
A reconciled current door schedule, final opening dimensions and installed motors are not established.
O’Brien Road industrial warehouse: plan, elevations and section · p.1
3no. · Issued June 2025 (month only) · J859-PL02-001; planning drawing only; received 9 June 2025 · Checked 2026-09-05
3no.
Reference corrected in further information · Further-information response for exact Carlow 2560158
What the evidence says
The 7 May 2026 response explicitly calls the original R441 road reference a typographical error and identifies R448 as the proposed access road. This correction is retained separately from the later council refusal of the proposed access arrangement.
Why it may matter — interpretation
Interpretation: prevents the original description from sending a reader to the wrong access-road reference.
What is not established
The council refused the proposal on 13 July 2026 because of the priority-junction arrangement rather than a roundabout; that refusal is under appeal. No final accepted access design is established.
Carlow 25/60158: response to further information · p.3
typographical error · Issued 2026-05-07 · Response to the 15 August 2025 request; received 8 May 2026 · Checked 2026-09-05
typographical error
Selected pages of 4 government-published PDFs were visually inspected. Four PDFs support the five candidate facts; selected first pages of two official-file product brochures were also reviewed. A flood report was opened only to identify its scope and is not counted as a technical review. The full council and appeal files remain only partly reviewed. Proposals do not establish procurement or installed work.
Source history
2560158
2560158
Permission refused
501869
501875
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.
The council’s formal grounds for this decision. Planner assessment and later appeal outcomes are separate.
The proposed development, by reason of its reliance on a proposed priority junction rather than a roundabout, would result in an inadequate and substandard road access arrangement. Therefore, the proposed development would interfere with the safety and free-flowing nature of traffic on the adjoining road network and would result in an increased potential for traffic conflict and congestion. The proposed access arrangement would therefore be detrimental to road safety and the orderly movement of vehicular traffic, would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Official final decision · PDF page 2PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ddc33961f3bcaeaff8d647636ae6731e74447b0ecd8532280e98fd6f7dc86fe7