Fingal County Council · F26A0509E · Dublin
Latest linked evidence
F26A0509E · Permission refused
Open official sourceIndexed observation: Refuse Permission. Read the linked decisions for their full terms.
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
Government document review
Council refused the 12-dwelling, submitted 1,346 m² scheme on 7 August 2026. Exact council record 104950 now displays Application under appeal, lodged 3 September 2026, reference PL-502045-DF-26; no appeal decision is displayed. W34/W35 ingestion dates precede that appeal. The boundary drawing excludes units 46 and 47; no phase totals are merged.
4 official documents inspected · Checked 2026-09-07 · Official file index
Council refusal recorded; appeal pending · Exact 12-dwelling F26A/0509E proposal. The council register now records a pending appeal lodged 3 September 2026; this is the council decision and its assessment, not an appeal outcome.
What the evidence says
The 7 August refusal concerns the design’s relationship with adjoining Community Infrastructure land. The assessment identifies poorly overlooked rear gardens at units 52–59 and a rear 3 m route without a clear destination, calling for significant redesign.
Why it may matter — interpretation
For layout and landscape designers: resolve the interface with community land and the route’s destination, surveillance and land consent before relying on the submitted boundary plan.
What is not established
The council concern is not an approved revised layout. No appeal decision, later replacement drawing, final permission or construction start is established.
Decision to refuse permission · p.2
Refusal reason1 · Issued 2026-08-07 · Decision order PF/2257/26 dated 7 August 2026 · Checked 2026-09-07
design and layout; adjacent Community Infrastructure lands
Chief Executive order and planning assessment · p.12
Layout, Design, and Visual Impact · Issued 2026-08-07 · Chief Executive order PF/2257/26; 7 August 2026 · Checked 2026-09-07
rear gardens 52–59; 3 m walkway
Chief Executive order and planning assessment · p.13
Connectivity · Issued 2026-08-07 · Chief Executive order PF/2257/26; 7 August 2026 · Checked 2026-09-07
landowner consent; route destination
Boundary plan · p.1
PP470-02: units and western boundary · Issued April 2026 (month only) · Jane McCorkell PP470-02; revision 03; status S4 planning; dateApril 2026 (month precision); received 16 June 2026 · Checked 2026-09-07
Units 46 and 47 subject to separate application
Council refusal recorded; appeal pending · PL-600 received 16 June 2026; historical submitted design under a council refusal now on appeal.
What the evidence says
Planning-stage drawing PL-600 proposes blockwork flow-through planters at dwellings, tanked permeable parking areas, a weir at manhole S22 and a swale with an infiltration trench. These remain submitted design components of the refused scheme.
Why it may matter — interpretation
For drainage estimators: the drawing establishes the proposed system types, but detailed sizing and scope must be checked against any later layout and appeal outcome.
What is not established
No approved drainage construction design, installed system or appointed supplier is established. The legend gives a 1.2 m wide trench while the typical-detail heading gives 1.0 m; do not use either as a resolved takeoff dimension. Water Services’ no-objection subject to conditions did not grant permission.
Proposed foul and surface drainage plan · p.1
PL-600 legend and typical details · Issued 2026-04-08 · MTW project 4381 drawing PL-600; planning stage; dated8April 2026; revision dash; received 16 June 2026 · Checked 2026-09-07
planters; tanked permeable paving;S22 weir;swale
Chief Executive order and planning assessment · p.15
Water Services and Drainage · Issued 2026-08-07 · Chief Executive order PF/2257/26; 7 August 2026 · Checked 2026-09-07
no objection subject to condition
Council refusal recorded; appeal pending · Historical April 2026 boundary drawing for the refused application; material types are keyed to different boundaries, not a universal site specification.
What the evidence says
Boundary plan PP470-02 distinguishes retained concrete-post and timber-panel fencing from new 1.8 m concrete-post timber-panel fencing, a rendered hollow-block wall with concrete capping, garden-access gates and 2 m palisade fencing.
Why it may matter — interpretation
For boundary and landscape estimators: separate retention from new work and check each keyed boundary against any revised western layout.
What is not established
Final approval, quantities, procurement and installation are not established. The plan’s note about development built under earlier permission is an applicant drawing annotation and does not independently verify completion or merge phases.
Boundary plan · p.1
Boundary treatments legend types1-5 · Issued April 2026 (month only) · Jane McCorkell PP470-02; revision 03; status S4 planning; dateApril 2026 (month precision); received 16 June 2026 · Checked 2026-09-07
retained and new boundary types
Exact council record 104950 and 41-document catalogue across both pages checked. Refusal pages 1–2, assessment pages 8–16 and 20–22, full drainage sheet and full boundary sheet visually reviewed. Assessment pages 12, 13, 15 reviewed at larger scale. Current appeal status read from visible summary fields; no appeal-document row in the observed catalogue and web search did not establish a commission case page. Architectural house-type drawings and structural systems were not reviewed; no frame or envelope construction claim.
Source history
F26A0509E
F26A0509E
Permission refused
Evidence
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 virtue of its design and layout and particularly its relationship to adjacent Community Infrastructure zoned lands to the west, is considered to represent unsustainable and undesirable development of the site which would prejudice the future development of the adjoining CI lands. The proposal would contravene materially Table 14.4: Infill Development and Objective SPQHO42 Development of Underutilised Infill, Corner and Backland Sites of the Fingal Development Plan 2023–2029, and if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for similar forms of development, contrary to the principles of proper planning and sustainable development in the area
Official final decision · PDF page 2PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 6b79cee99b1278fd7c4362ef5a2192bd8436d2c05c8f680a7bdb046a5677ab05