Refusal decisions · 8 June–14 June 2026

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

1. Having regard to Section 4.6 of the Kilkenny City and County Development Plan 2021-2027 which outlines objectives for smaller towns and villages, it is considered the proposed development does and will, by virtue of its location on a former car park associated with a public house, along with the type of commercial activity proposed to be retained, have a serious negative visual impact on Pausltown rural village settlement. By virtue of its site location, surrounding pattern of development and nature of the proposed activity, the development fails to integrate with its physical surroundings and militates against the preservation of the rural village environment and amenity. It is therefore considered that the development at this location represents an unacceptable visual intrusion that would detract from the amenity of, and be inconsistent with the visual character of the area and surrounding residential land use. As such the development is contrary to planning policy of the Kilkenny County Development Plan 2021-2027 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. Having regard to the nature and extent of the development proposed in addition to its close proximity to adjoining dwelling units, Marble Court Residential Estate and site location within a predominately residential area of Paulstown village, it is considered that a builder’s storage yard on this site for the purposes outlined, seriously injures the areas residential amenities contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. Having regard to the lack of / or incomplete documentation submitted on: • Surface water management associated with a hydrocarbon interceptor and appropriate infiltration testing in compliance with BRE 365 Soakaway Digest design, • Management of contaminated run-off’ and liquid seepage emanating from the waste product and from the proposed storage areas • Material Storage Management and Heights • Fire Risk Management • Expected volumes/tonnage/location of waste • Noise Impact Assessment Report • Lighting the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would not be prejudicial to public health or to the environment at this location and would therefore be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

4. The development to be retained relates to an existing builder’s storage yard which represents an unauthorised commercial change of use including unauthorised site access modifications, gate and a shed that does not form part of this planning application and that the proposed development would facilitate the consolidation and intensification of this unauthorised commercial use. Accordingly, it is considered that it would be inappropriate for the Planning Authority to consider a grant of permission for the development in such circumstances and that its grant would be contrary to proper procedure and the proper planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: d1f49e2c9c903335d0b490e44ae50c8db6cbad80b85a2363e67bfdb715a782cf

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

Source note: 3 of 4 adopted grounds are reproduced in full with their original numbers. Ground 2 is withheld because it includes personal housing-history information.

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that effluent from the proposed development can be treated and discharged at the subject site without risk to public health and the environment.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that surface water resulting from the proposed development can be adequately discharged within the curtilage of the site, and would therefore be prejudicial to public health and give rise to traffic hazard.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

4. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the provision of adequate sightlines at the proposed entrance to the site, and the development would therefore give rise to traffic hazard.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 5217a679d5cdf112b4f912bf83ef6f929106060016727ad653fa217cb1461caf

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

1. The proposed development would contribute to the already extensive ribbon development and give rise to a build-up of development in this rural area which is lacking in certain services and community facilities. The proposed development, would therefore, be detrimental to the rural character of the area and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The site of the proposed development is located within the Area of Strong Urban Influence as defined in the Limerick Development Plan 2022-2028. It is considered that the applicant does not come within the scope of the housing need criteria as set out in Objective HO O20 (Rural Areas under Strong Urban Influence) of the Development Plan as they are already in receipt of a grant of permission for a dwelling under application 23/60073 and as such, the proposed development would materially contravene the objectives of the Limerick Development Plan 2022-2028 in relation to rural settlement, militate against the preservation of the rural environment and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. The proposed dwelling, scale, height and its mock-Georgian design approach on a greenfield rural site, would appear visually obtrusive and out of character with the prevailing pattern of predominantly single-storey dwellings in the vicinity, and would fail to integrate satisfactorily into the receiving landscape. The proposed development would therefore fail to safeguard the sensitivity and distinctiveness of the relevant landscape character area, contrary to Policy EH P8 of the Limerick Development Plan 2022–2028 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

4. In the absence of appropriate documentation and required sightlines, the Planning Authority can not be satisfied that the proposed development would not endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard because the traffic movements generated by the proposed development where the sightlines are restricted would interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the public road.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 9437a29089c84ffbf51417739de50ca9d6b3cf490ff35c302b19e1db7a061220

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

1. The proposed automotive electrics and diagnostics use, by reason of its rural location, is not considered to constitute a rural-generated enterprise and has not been demonstrated to have any functional or site-specific requirement to locate at this rural location. The proposed use is not dependent on an agricultural holding, natural resource or other location-specific rural activity and is considered to be more appropriately located on suitably zoned commercial, enterprise or industrial lands within a designated settlement. The proposed development would therefore represent an inappropriate form of non-rural generated commercial development in the open countryside, would be contrary to Core Policy Objective CPO 4.49 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Having regard to the requirements of Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive, Part XAB of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and the provisions of the Longford County Development Plan 2021–2027 relating to the protection of European Sites, biodiversity, water quality and the Natura 2000 network, the Planning Authority is not satisfied, on the basis of the information submitted, that the proposed development, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, would not be likely to have a significant effect on European Sites including Lough Ree SPA (Site Code 004064) and Lough Ree SAC (Site Code 000440). In particular, the application has not been accompanied by sufficient objective scientific information to enable the Planning Authority to complete Appropriate Assessment screening, having regard to the nature of the automotive commercial use, the storage and handling of hydrocarbons, oils, hazardous substances and associated waste streams, the proximity of the site to the River Inny waterbody and the potential indirect hydrological pathway to European Sites. In the absence of adequate information relating to hydrocarbon management, surface water management, spill containment, pollution prevention measures, operational waste management and potential in-combination effects, likely significant effects on European Sites cannot be excluded at screening stage. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive, the relevant natural heritage and environmental protection provisions of the Longford County Development Plan 2021–2027, and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: e623a2fea1ac81a70c86a5b0baf20f4fe4971cee10bd52e4242dbeff20d6a929

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

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the ‘Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ and The Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027. The planning application lacks sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a serious impact on the residential amenity of the existing dwelling and any future residents of the proposed dwelling by reason of its siting and design. The development would therefore set an undesirable precedent within the area and is considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard, obstruction of road users and inadequate access and circulation arrangements associated with the site. The Planning Authority is therefore not satisfied that the proposed development would provide an acceptable standard of traffic safety and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 8b5ac28d3492e7ea6b23e7f8c3f3e926e96cb92ba0845b9cefca749dd8ec6a9a

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

1. It is a requirement of Policy Objective HOU 36 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021- 2027, as varied and Section 13.8.35 that residential extensions are sensitively designed, so as to visually integrate with the existing dwelling and to not negatively impact on residential amenities. The proposed development comprises a two-storey extension which is substantial in scale in the context of the existing dwelling and site parameters, including the subject property’s position as a mid-terraced two storey dwelling, sited between 2 no. 2 storey neighbouring dwellings. The proposed extension would be constructed close to the common neighbouring boundaries and in particular to that with No. 36 St. Alphonsus Road to the north. It has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed extension can be constructed and maintained without impinging on neighbouring lands and that surface water run off / drainage can be appropriately dealt with within the site boundaries. Furthermore, in considering the height and depth of the proposed extension, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development is excessive in scale within this context and would subsequently have an unacceptable impact upon the amenities of neighbouring residents by way of dominance / overbearing impact (including on private amenity spaces) and loss of light, including the failure to pass the 45 degree angle test in accordance with Section 2.2.17 of BRE’s ‘Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to Good Practice, 2022’ signifying that the development would result in the significant loss of daylight to both neighbouring properties to the north (no. 36 St. Alphonsus Road) and south (no. 38 St Alphonsus Road.) Accordingly, the proposed development would contravene Policy Objective HOU 36 and Section 13.8.35 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027, as varied as it would harm both the visual and residential amenities of the area and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: a6ae80f7b63ec93ef947a0a4e22cd5a63f2472aee399ad80214008685add2509

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

1. The subject dwelling (for which permission is being sought to demolish and replace) is an intact vernacular building located in Rural Policy Zone 2. It is an objective of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027 (as varied), under policy objectives BHC 42 and HOU 50 to recognise the importance of the contribution of vernacular architecture to the character of a place and promote, where feasible, the protection, retention and appropriate revitalisation and use of the vernacular built heritage, including thatched cottages and other structures in both urban and rural areas, which contribute to the streetscape and landscape character and deter and resist the demolition of these structures. It is the Planning Authority’s assertion that the applicant has not adequately demonstrated that the existing vernacular dwelling is not reasonably capable of being restored or otherwise improved and as such, the principle of demolition would contravene policy objectives BHC 42 and HOU 50 in addition to Section 13.9.11 of the Louth County Development Plan (as varied) and if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent to other such development in the vicinity and would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the rural area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. It is the objective of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027, as varied to ensure that the design, scale and layout of any replacement dwelling does not have a visual impact significantly greater than the dwelling to be replaced. Policy Objective HOU 52 and Policy Objective HOU 53 also requires applications for replacement dwellings to comply with the standards and criteria set out in Section 13.9.13 of Chapter 13 Development Management Guidelines (replacement dwellings.) It is a further objective to retain and protect significant stands of existing trees / hedgerows, particularly species rich roadside hedgerows, as per policy Objective ENV 39. The proposed dwelling by virtue of its overall scale, form and massing, in the context of the established semi-detached vernacular buildings, together with the loss of mature native trees and hedgerow along the roadside, would result in a dwelling that has a significantly greater visual impact than the established built form and which would erode the rural characteristics of this site and surrounding locality. The proposed development would, therefore, contravene policy objectives HOU 52, HOU 53, ENV 39 and Section 13.9.13 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027 (as varied) and would adversely affect the rural amenity and character of the area and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the rural area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: df82cd48c2dd778b7e4af92c20d74667c44ce72877edc1af0a76f2e3aad07b5b

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

1. The site is located within a rural area outside of any designated settlement boundary, therefore the proposed development for a multi-unit residential development would be contrary to Policy TVHP 8 of the current Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028, which aims to direct multi-unit residential developments to designated settlements in accordance with the Core Strategy. The proposed development, if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for multi-unit residential schemes in the rural area, would militate against the preservation of the rural environment, and detract from the character of the landscape at this location which it is necessary to preserve. Therefore, the proposed development would materially contravene the rural housing policies and objectives of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development is located in an area identified as being under strong urban influence for development as set out in the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028, where it is policy to grant permission for permanent dwellings only on the basis of the applicant being able to demonstrate their social or economic need under Objective RHO 1 of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022 - 2028. In this regard, the applicant in this instance is a limited company and the criteria under RHO1 has not been satisfied. It is considered therefore that the proposed development, if permitted, would constitute haphazard development in a rural area which would militate against the preservation of the rural environment and interfere with the character of the landscape at this location which it is necessary to preserve. Therefore, the proposed development would materially contravene the rural housing policies and objectives of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ec83e2c3348416cea80ae636626b6266f201879a2072a4d81bb309ee99311eb3

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

1. The application site is located in a rural area outside any designated settlement and in a Rural Area under Strong Urban Influence as defined in the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines for Planning Authorities and the Meath County Development Plan 2021 – 2027 where development which is not rurally-generated should be more properly located in settlement centres. It is the policy of the County Development Plan to restrict housing in this area to those who are intrinsically part of the rural community or who have an occupation predominantly based in the rural community. It is considered, based on the information submitted, that the Applicant has not sufficiently demonstrated a site specific rural generated housing need for development of a dwelling in this location due to the lack of robust and substantial supporting information. The proposed development would be contrary to the policy of the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines for Planning Authorities and the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would establish a very undesirable future precedent.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The site of the proposed development is within ‘an Area under Strong Urban Influence’ as identified in the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines for Planning Authorities (Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, 2005) and in a ‘Rural Area under Strong Urban Influence’, which is demonstrating pressure for individual dwellings, and where housing is restricted in accordance with the policies set out in the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027. Policy RD POL 3 of the Plan seeks “to protect areas falling within the environs of urban centres in this Area Type from urban generated and unsightly ribbon development and to maintain the identity of these urban areas”. Bearing in mind the extent of development already permitted at this location, it is considered that the proposed development, if permitted, would conflict with this policy in that an additional house in this area would result in ribbon development, contribute to the encroachment of random rural development in the vicinity, would militate against the preservation of the rural environment and the efficient provision of public services and infrastructure, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. Insufficient evidence has been provided to the Planning Authority to demonstrate that the proposed development meets the specific requirements of the Meath County Development 2021–2027 and associated policy - RD POL 38 which states “To ensure that all development accessing off the county’s road network is at a location and carried out in a manner which would not endanger public safety by way of a traffic hazard”. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the location and design of the entrance can facilitate safe access and egress from the site. The Applicant has not demonstrated unobstructed sightlines of 90 metres to the nearside edge of the road, in accordance with TII document DN-GEO-03060, from the entrance, nor has the Applicant demonstrated unobstructed forward visibility stopping sightlines of 90 metres, in accordance with TII document DN-GEO-03031 within the red line development boundary. Neither has consent for any works proposed to facilitate sightlines been submitted with this application. The proposed development would therefore endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users or otherwise, and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2, 3

4. It is the policy of the Meath County Development 2021-2027 (as varied) “To require all applications for rural houses to comply with the ‘Meath Rural House Design Guide’” which inter alia seeks to “avoid the removal of large sections of hedgerow” (RD POL 9). Together with the extensive removal of mature trees and hedgerow necessary to achieve the vehicular access and unobstructed sightlines, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed dwelling would represent a visually obtrusive feature, which would not respect and integrate with surrounding landscape in terms of height, mass and scale. It would be incapable of being satisfactorily assimilated into its surroundings and would injure the amenities of the area. Consequently, it is considered that the proposed development would conflict with this policy and with the provisions of the Meath Rural House Design Guide, establish an undesirable future precedent and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 0397bd225543bd4da6b3a80cfa2953e1f07c40670cc96a828900910e4a35509e

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

1. The relevant legislation, Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2023 in this instance, requires that a number of requirements be complied with to allow a Planning Authority to extend an appropriate period. One such requirement specified under Section 42(1)(c)(ii) required that ‘substantial works were carried out pursuant to the permission during that period’. The development permitted under Pl. Ref. 21/625 has yet to commence; as such, the Planning Authority is precluded from extending the appropriate period of same.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 97b87ab97a03995157c87c575ce07f90118af8feea9c51c78097c5e08179b46f

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

1. It is a policy (ED POL 16) of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 seeks, “To support the location of a once off medium to large-scale rural enterprise only in instances where it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Council, that the enterprise can be more readily accommodated in a rural setting than in a designated settlement centre and subject to standard development management considerations being applied”. Based on the information submitted, it is not considered that the applicant has demonstrated a justification or need for a commercial development of this scale at this un-serviced rural location. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development could not reasonably be located within a defined settlement as envisaged by County Development Plan policy. Therefore, would establish an undesirable future precedent for developments of this kind and would be contrary to the above provisions of the Meath County Development Plan 2021 – 2027, and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The proposed development would give rise to additional and unnecessary vehicular traffic movements in this rural location, which would intensify the use of the local road network. The proposed development is therefore considered would create a traffic hazard, be prejudicial to public safety and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: b9fab00bc113d5cb1f115f087d733aa9ade9c53a022ba1fca98e354341d31b69

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

1. It is a policy (ED POL 16) of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 seeks, “To support the location of a once off medium to large-scale rural enterprise only in instances where it is demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Council, that the enterprise can be more readily accommodated in a rural setting than in a designated settlement centre and subject to standard development management considerations being applied”. Based on the information submitted, it is not considered that the applicant has demonstrated a justification or need for a commercial development of this scale at this un-serviced rural location. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development could not reasonably be located within a defined settlement as envisaged by County Development Plan policy. Therefore, would establish an undesirable future precedent for developments of this kind and would be contrary to the above provisions of the Meath County Development Plan 2021 – 2027, and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. Based on the information submitted the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development can be served by a safe and suitable access arrangement. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the provision of adequate sightlines at the site entrance in accordance with DMURS, failed to provide sufficient information regarding traffic generation associated with the development, failed to demonstrate that loading and unloading activities can be accommodated within the site, and failed to demonstrate compliance with the parking standards of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 or the provision of adequate pedestrian infrastructure along the site frontage. The proposed development would therefore constitute a traffic hazard and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated sufficient legal interest in, or control over, all lands required to facilitate the proposed development, including lands necessary to provide visibility splays and associated frontage improvement works. In the absence of adequate evidence of landowner consent, the Planning Authority is unable to complete a proper assessment of the proposal. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ba83e3a5aa3338243f20ca92bd65eab6cd4822145f31a03cce075f290720fc98

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

Source note: The source link opens the official case record. Open its documents and select 2560238 - Chief Executives Order (document 765881), signed 10 June 2026, for the reviewed final reasons.

1. Section 15.23.2 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 outlines the safety and convenience requirements for access onto rural roads, and the applicant has failed to clearly demonstrate that the intensification of the existing access onto the Local Class 2 road, where 70m sight distances are required, will not result in a traffic hazard. The proposal is therefore deemed to be unacceptable as it would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard, be contrary to the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031, and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 3271dab11913d5b4a0cd72e0172b9e85e1a240d0cee4e46664b1bca9958d36cf

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

Source note: The source link opens the official case record. Open its documents and select 2660166 - Chief Executives Order (document 765879), signed 10 June 2026, for the reviewed final reasons.

1. Policy SRP 2 of Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 seeks to protect the scenic quality of lakes by prohibiting development located between a public road and a lake where the development would interrupt a view of the lake or adversely affect its setting or its wildlife habitat. Development may be permitted between a public road and the lakeshore where the development is screened from the lake by existing topography or vegetation. The proposed dwelling is located between a lake and a public road and is not screened from the lake by existing topography or vegetation, and therefore the proposed development would adversely impact on its setting. Accordingly, if permitted as proposed, the development would materially conflict with the Development Plan and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

2. Section 15.23 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 outlines the safety and convenience requirements for new accesses onto public roads, and states that ”Proposals requiring works on third party land must be accompanied by a written legal agreement, in accordance with Appendix 13. This legal agreement and accompanying maps shall be signed by all parties and witnessed by a Solicitor”. The proposed development accesses onto the Local Tertiary Road L-70021-0 where visibility splays of 50 metres x 2.4 metres in both directions, at 1.05 metres above ground level, are required. The submitted Site Layout Plan indicates that works to third-party land would be required, and in the absence of third-party legal agreements, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that clear and unobstructed visibility splays are achievable and that the proposed development will not result in a traffic hazard. The applicant has failed to clearly demonstrate that a new entrance onto the L-70021-0 can be provided in accordance with Section 15.23 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. The proposal is therefore deemed to be unacceptable as it would be contrary to the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

3. The applicant has failed to fully demonstrate compliance with Policy RSDP 1 and associated Table 15.3 ‘Guidelines for Siting and Designing a Rural House in the Vernacular Style’ of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 by reason of the overall height at 9.2m and the chimneys on the front roof plain. The proposed development would therefore, if permitted, materially conflict with Policy RSDP 1 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: c38af1257b240dbe1c200a402b652c0a548f9c4e4bd8b5cd3b2c4e6788f4d3ae

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

1. The public notices, plans and particulars submitted appear to be inaccurate and inconsistent by describing elements as new or proposed which are already in place and not clarifying if retention permission or demolition is sought for the existing unauthorised side and rear exensions, the floor area of which appears to be incorporated into the newly proposed extension. The proposed development, as it stands, appears to seek an extension of unauthorised development (side and rear extensions, vehicular access, car parking layout, boundary wall) for which planning permission does not exist and for which retention permission has not been sought. The Planning Authority is precluded from issuing a grant of permission and permission is therefore refused.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate adherence to SDCC requirements for visibility and sightlines at the vehicular access and the impact of the boundary wall on the neighbouring businesses vehicular access. Therefore, the proposal constitutes a traffic hazard and is contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The existing unauthorised rear extension, and the proposed rear extension that would replace it, is sited approximately 2m from the watercourse south of the application site, contrary to the 10m minimum setback for new development prescribed in policy GI3 Objective 3 of the South Dublin County Development Plan 2022-2028, and would therefore represent encroachment on the riparian buffer to the watercourse, contrary to Council policy and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

4. The applicant has failed to provide adequate information relating to the potential impact on the pNHA arising both from the proximity of development and also from the potential loss of green infrastructure and non-provision of natural SUDs within the site. The proposed therefore represents a risk to the visual, recreational, environmental, ecological, industrial heritage and amenity of the Grand Canal proposed Natural Heritage Area, in contravention of policy NCBH4, and objectives 1 and 2 of that policy, and policy NCBH 9 Objective 4 of the South Dublin County Development Plan 2022 – 2028, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

5. The applicant's additional information response does not address the issues raised in the request for Additional Information. In the absence of adequate information the Planning Authority is unable to adequately assess some aspects of the proposal, including the overall floor area of the proposal, possible accommodation at mezzanine / first floor level and proposals in relation to the roof. A grant of permission in such circumstaces would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 36a0e35ef42a8f15db5df7b5c91f8b8c4bf0fbe5b3bf63a663e7f75e12dccb1d

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

1. The proposed development, comprising a single-storey dwelling on a backland site within the curtilage of No. 4 Ashe Road, is considered unacceptable by reason of its poor design quality, inappropriate siting, and failure to integrate with the established character, scale, pattern, and streetscape of the area. The proposal as presented would adversely impact the residential amenity of No. 4 Ashe Road through its proximity and reduction of private amenity space, while the proposed access, parking, and hard surfacing arrangements are considered unsatisfactory and visually intrusive. The Planning Authority considers that the proposal fails to respond appropriately to Mullingar's local characteristics in terms of structure, pattern, scale, design, coherence, and materiality and is therefore contrary to Policy Objective RD4 of the Mullingar Settlement Plan. Accordingly, the proposed development in its current form would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 89e5df8072344ca9e8ac10458462a6c1f356e8f1ec76b4ff799819f35b879aa3

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

1. The Planning Authority is not satisfied, based on the information submitted, that the applicant has demonstrated a bona fide need for dependent‑relative accommodation at this location. In addition, the proposed unit fails to provide the required physical and direct internal access to the main dwelling. The development therefore contravenes Policy CPO 16.29 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021–2027 and is considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development would result in the subdivision of a suburban residential plot to create an additional dwelling on a site that does not fall within the category of “larger houses and plots” envisaged under Section 13.2.1 of the Mullingar Settlement Area Plan. The proposed unit fails to comply with the minimum standards of the Planning and Design Standards for Apartments – Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2025), provides substandard residential accommodation, and would constitute overdevelopment of the site. The proposal would be out of character with the established pattern of single-dwelling development in the Newlands estate, while the proposed side canopy structure would detract from the visual character of the area and conflict with Policy CPO 16.27. The development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 3c5dbbcbd14383e55fd1844a3fda9e8e2b941db85930c12b3f103801e3d1749a

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

1. The proposed change of use from residential to short-term letting would be contrary to objective TM49 of Volume 1 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 which seeks to protect the County's existing housing stock from any proposal that would undermine the supply of housing within the county. The proposed change of use of a dwelling from long term residential to short-term letting in an unserviced rural area remote from dedicated services, including a public footpath and public lighting, would also be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: b596f407ae4ba28382746f5f3a30b65b186a81b13791a5cc207f8d4914a942a4

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

1. It is considered that the applicant does not meet the requirements set out under Section 4.9.5 Volume 1 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028. Furthermore, the detached self-contained residential unit development is not in accordance with the policy as set out in Section 3.3 'Self-contained Residential Unit for a Family Member' contained in Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028. This policy requires that the unit must be attached to the main dwelling house and must be accessible from the main dwelling house via an internal access door. The development is therefore contrary to this policy and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed log cabin does not comply with rural housing policy and Section 4.9.6 of Volume 1 of the Wexford County Developmet Plan 2022-2028. The site has a total size of 0.19Ha which already includes the existing dwelling and two shed/storage structure. The proposal does not have its own site edged in red and does not comply with minimum site size requirements. The site is also not served by its own water and wastewater treatment system.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The proposed detached dwelling does not comply with the minimum site size for detached rural dwellings as set out in Table 3-3 of Volume two of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022- 2028.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

4. As the applicant has proposed a separate dwelling it would require a separate and distinct connection to both water and wastewater treatment system. Connection to the existing water and wastewater infrastructure on site is not acceptable. As such the proposed development would be prejudicial to public health and therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: e15ccc5e6c01d8fed0dc469ec809697d7169703aa60963967cd675694dcdd17e

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

1. There is a paucity of information submitted regarding the operation of the existing Wastewater Treatment Systems on site. A comprehensive report compiled by a suitably qualified person to show that the existing on site wastewater treatment systems have the capacity to treat and dispose of all wastewater generated by the existing nursing home, staff and laundry along with the proposed 4 additional bedrooms has not been supplied. Ponding was noted in the vicinity of the percolation area and it is considered that the proposed planning is premature pending the regularisation of the existing Wastewater Treatment System. No details of a Discharge Licence Waters under the Local Government Water Pollution Act 1977-1990 as amended have been supplied. The proposed development is therefore prejudicial to public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: f825968b08b034d325cb8a38198839c15bdfa2963b9f43ac70d1f5e81b4aedc4

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

1. The converted garage development seeking retention is not in accordance with the policy as set out in Section 3.3 ‘Self-contained Residential Unit for a Family Member’ contained in Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028. This policy requires that the unit must be attached to the main dwelling house and must be accessible from the main dwelling house via an internal access door. The development is therefore contrary to this policy and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: f341a00f684ebc71e4c394fc16655fe1db108d8508f5884c2757d103861742cd

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

Source note: The report header lists 22 June 2026. The signed executive adoption and matching formal refusal order are both dated 12 June 2026; that is the decision date used here.

1. Having regard to the inadequacy of the laneway serving the site in terms of width, alignment and structural condition and the number of existing dwellings and agricultural fields served by this laneway, it is considered that the existing lane is only suitable to cater for traffic movements generated by existing permanent native residents who are local to this particular area and who are already served by this lane and therefore to allow this development would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard.

   Official final decision · PDF page 6

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ccc2b73f3e8bdf7d973ce4ca02f3932cdd8826adbc21f6bd8c610acb83b26ad4