Refusal decisions · 6 July–12 July 2026

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

1. The existing discharges from the Doonbeg wastewater treatment facilities are non-compliant with the emission limit values as set out in the Environmental Protection Agency’s wastewater discharge licence, and no upgrade to this facility is proposed within the current Uisce Eireann Capital Investment Plan. In addition, the outfall from the Doonbeg wastewater treatment facility at McGrath’s Point in Rinnagonaght discharges to the Mid-Clare Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and the Carrowmore Dunes Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Having regard to the nature of the proposed development, which would significantly increase the foul water effluent loading on the existing wastewater treatment plant, the Planning Authority considers that on the basis of the available information, the proposed development, by itself and in conjunction with existing developments in Doonbeg would have significant adverse effects on water quality and the receiving environment and therefore on the qualifying interests of the Mid-Clare Coast SPA and the Carrowmore Dunes SAC. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health, would contravene objective CDP15.3 “European Sites” of the Clare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied), and would by contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

2. The proposal site would be accessed via the existing Churchfield housing estate access from the N67 national road at a point where the 50 kilometre per hour speed limit applies. Having regard to the existing traffic movements at this access point, the significant intensification of use of same as proposed, the existing access and parking arrangements in the immediate environs of the access, the local demand for parking in the area associated with adjacent land uses, and the restricted visibility from this access when vehicles are parked between the footpaths and the edge of the carriageway, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would have adverse impacts on traffic safety and free flow on the N67 national road. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. With regard to surfacewater management, the Planning Authority considers that it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed onsite attenuation and drainage system would adequately manage all surfacewaters generated within the site. On the basis of the available information, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is considered that the proposed development would result in standing water within the site, and surfacewaters flowing into adjacent properties or onto the public roads. Therefore, the proposed development would have adverse impacts on adjacent amenities and traffic safety and 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: 2213310a1f7d13e0bb5451948b95eec4cdd6dac6fcefc90792b75776993c55d6

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

1. In light of the existing unauthorised development on the site, and in the absence of proposals to regularise same, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposal represents an orderly and sustainable form of development. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed development, taken in conjunction with existing unauthorised development on the site, would represent piecemeal and haphazard development, would set an undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate development in the area, would seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity, 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: 18417aa267ab9b25adab5ee7aa529416a49c5bc1ae06323ce77973b1433d9fcd

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

1. As outlined in the Cork County Development Plan 2022-2028; it is the Council’s stated policy under Planning Objective RP 5-22 to safeguard areas from inappropriate development and to ensure that new dwellings respect the character, pattern and tradition of existing places. It is considered that the proposed dwellinghouse and retention of an unauthorised structure on the site would constitute backland development and result in a haphazard and disorderly pattern of development. It is therefore considered that the retention of an unauthorised structure and the proposed dwellinghouse would result in a poor and unacceptable standard of layout that would be out of keeping with the established character of the area, and would create an undesirable precedent for other such inappropriate and substandard development, in a rural area where there is a high concentration of individual dwellings. Accordingly, the proposed development would materially contravene the stated objective RP 5-22 of the County Development Plan, would militate against the preservation of the rural environment and lead to demands for the uneconomic provision of public services and community facilities, and 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: e1d882290e210e0914891d05104144188e067dc102c6b56789a935fd28fe88ca

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 Notification of Decision dated 9 July 2026 (order 2026PH1889) to read the reviewed final notice.

1. Having regard to the fact that substantial works have not been carried out pursuant to the Planning Register Reference No.: 21/50342, as required by Section 42 (1)(a)(i)(III) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended), it is considered that to extend the appropriate period would be contrary to Section 42(1)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) and would thereby 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: c07302da13409c7e6b62a9bebb4917ab3161b8354668b00145aa229cf3b53481

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 Notification of Decision dated 9 July 2026 (order 2026PH1836) to read the reviewed final notice.

1. The subject site is located in the rural townland of Umrycam, categorised as an area of High Scenic Amenity, (Policy L-P-2 states, ‘to protect areas identified as ‘High Scenic Amenity’ and ‘Moderate Scenic Amenity’ on Map 11.1 ‘Scenic Amenity’, County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030). Within these areas, only development of a nature, location and scale that integrates with, and reflects the character and amenity of the landscape may be considered, subject to compliance with other relevant policies of the Plan’. Having regard to (i) the proposed location of the development, outside of and removed from any existing farmyard complex within the control of the applicant, and, (ii) the mass and scale of the structure on lands associated with the overengineering of the site, it is considered that the proposed development would result in a haphazard form of development which would lead to unnecessary scarring and would detract from the quality of this landscape. To permit development as proposed would materially contravene the aforementioned policy and would 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: 1930b51d48ad5a3f5e57aa1a9d7cdc1ba87f4b0f509125c5c582bea59c8c7ca4

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 Notification of Decision dated 9 July 2026 (order 2026PH1881) to read the reviewed final notice.

1. Having regard to the internal layout of the proposed accommodation and in particular an absence of natural light or ventilation to serve the kitchen/living room and accessible bathroom, and also a lack of external storage for refuse bins, cycles, etc, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development if permitted, will provide a substandard level of residential accommodation that is severely detrimental to residential amenities of the proposed occupants and would be contrary to the proper planning and the sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

2. The proposed layout of the site area provides for the parking of vehicles adjacent to the proposed doorway into the accommodation unit. This will result in blocking of access/egress into the unit and furthermore, the blocking of access/egress in case of an emergency. There is also a lack of provision to ensure pedestrian movements through the site or to facilitate disabled access. For this reason, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development impacts negatively on residential and pedestrian safety and is 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: 1c026480fb5438d18dd65f57acda9509ee52ee07b35fcb1fc4e9cdf4fbc0343c

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 Notification of Decision dated 9 July 2026 (order 2026PH1933) to read the reviewed final notice.

1. The subject site is located within the settlement framework of Letterkenny on land zoned as ‘open space’. Having regard to the overall siting and location of the proposed wellness facility and the constrained and narrow nature of the subject site between the adjoining river and Regional Road, it is considered that the proposed development, if permitted, would constitute the disorderly over development of a constrained plot in a manner which would by itself, and by undesirable and unsustainable precedent, be contrary to Policy ED-P-9 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 and to the proper planning and orderly development of the site. Accordingly, to permit the proposed development would thereby 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: c62a75f5e559b19c1f46f2f55935f76a22f425594bcf0d06df7e58f82ca6354b

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

1. The retention of the outdoor seating area, screened enclosure, extendable canopies, flags and associated branding and advertising would be injurious to the character and appearance of this sensitive streetscape within the O'Connell Street and Environs Architectural Conservation Area. By reason of their scale, extent, design and visual prominence, the structures and associated signage would detract from the special interest and character of the Architectural Conservation Area and would adversely affect the setting of the adjoining Protected Structure. The proposed development would contravene Policies BHA2(a) and (d), BHA7(a) and (b), and BHA9 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028, would create an undesirable precedent for similar development, and would undermine the Z5 zoning objective, which seeks to consolidate and facilitate the development of the central area and to preserve and enhance its civic identity. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1, 2

2. The retention of the flags and flagholders would be injurious to the character and amenities of this sensitive streetscape, would create visual clutter within the O'Connell Street and Environs Architectural Conservation Area, and would adversely affect the setting of a Protected Structure. The proposed development does not comply with Section 3.6 (Canopies, Flags and Security) of the O'Connell Street and Environs Scheme of Special Planning Control (2022). Accordingly, the development, if retained, would adversely affect the character and appearance of the Architectural Conservation Area, would set an undesirable precedent for similar development, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. Having regard to the location of the outdoor dining structure on footpath lands under the control, management and maintenance of Dublin City Council, and in the absence of the consent of the relevant landowner, the retention of the structure would result in the permanent loss of public realm and pedestrian space in an area of high pedestrian activity. The development would diminish pedestrian amenity, impede pedestrian movement, and set an undesirable precedent for similar encroachments onto the public realm. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and the objectives of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028 relating to pedestrian movement and the enhancement of the public realm.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 9cbc4832c4a96fc1a62adac59edc499fff812043526fe26ce7dca1017e57cb01

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

1. The proposed development to be retained would not be in accordance with Section 12.4.8.1 - General Specifications and Section 12.4.8.3 Driveways/Hardstanding Areas of the County Development Plan. Having regard to the excessive width of the vehicular entrance, the extent of hardstanding, and the resulting over-dominant impact on the frontage, the development would contribute to the cumulative erosion of the residential streetscape and on- street parking provision in the area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and to the policies and objectives of the Development Plan.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 40f15512c42ad3839168167961c3be6472931908a0eaedade6a314ffc8795074

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

1. Having regard to Policy Objectives CA5, CA10 and PHP20 of the Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan 2022–2028, the Planning Authority acknowledges that renewable energy retrofit measures are supported in principle, including in the context of the Renewable Energy Directive (RED III). However, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed development would not give rise to noise nuisance or adverse impacts on residential amenity, having regard to the deficiencies and unresolved discrepancies in the submitted Noise Impact Assessment and the proximity of the proposed plant to private amenity areas.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposal would result in a reduction of private open space below the minimum standards set out in the current Apartment Guidelines for a significant number of units, and the incorporation of heat pump infrastructure within these reduced areas would further diminish their usability and has the potential to exacerbate noise impacts. The proposed 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: 38747d17fc14d3318081e9a2f3047e46d0eab8f4cf6f338c5bee50f8a79129fc

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

1. The development to be retained, by reason of its nature, scale, and visual impact, would adversely affect the character, setting, and special interest of No. 31 Crosthwaite Park West and other Protected Structures in the vicinity. It would also detract from the character of the Crosthwaite Park Architectural Conservation Area. Accordingly, the development would be contrary to Policy Objectives HER8 and HER13, and Section 12.11.4 of the Dún Laoghaire- Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028, and would undermine the built heritage of the area, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Having regard to the ‘A’ zoning objective, which seeks to provide residential development, improve residential amenity and protect existing residential amenities, it is considered that the retention of containers for storage associated with a commercial use, by reason of their nature, size, scale and visual impact, would seriously detract from the amenities of the area and injure the amenities of neighbouring properties. The development would be out of character with the surrounding residential context and would set an undesirable precedent for similar development. The retention of the development would therefore be contrary to the zoning objective and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 4006ca079bebdc3f43ccf2b932e2f01ee504cb194abeb15d3492278fb637449a

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

1. Having regard to the residential use and Objective 'A' zoning of the subject site, the development proposed to be retained, comprising a storage structure made of plywood which reads as a side extension to the existing conservatory and shed, is considered to be contrary to Section 12.3.7.1 Extensions to Dwellings (iii) Extensions to the side of the County Development Plan 2022-2028 in that it is incongruous to the existing subject dwelling and neighbouring dwellings, creating a visually inconsistent and piecemeal looking extension. In addition, the material used is not considered to be of sufficient quality or durability for a visually prominent residential extension and would have a negative visual impact on the subject site and wider streetscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and conflicts with the objectives of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028.Accordingly, to permit the development as proposed/ constructed 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: 36bf1b20575f9caebdad2ef6031f622d12ddcf04082e12d5d93ba5ec5124fd64

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

Source note: The original ground describes the HA zoning as both Community infrastructure and High Amenity. Its wording is reproduced as issued.

1. The site is zoned 'HA' Community infrastructure in the Fingal County Development Plan 2023-2029. The supporting vision for the 'HA' Community Infrastructure zoning objective seeks to 'Protect and enhance high amenity areas'. The development to be retained and the use of same as a 'fast food outlet/ take-away is not permitted under HA zoning and as such would contravene materially the HA 'High Amenity' Zoning objective, set an undesirable precedent and as such 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: 9214a093f6ab1c77e3388d9c1577713e4a60502879d3f32f18cd5bd850d9736e

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

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate unobstructed sightlines in accordance with TII DN GEO-03060 are achievable at the proposed relocated site entrance and, therefore, the proposed development is considered to represent a serious traffic hazard that would endanger public safety. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Objective DMSO118 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: e5528f01211d364d3074858b128af8946eb63c61084b7b11b7c3b43b4222723d

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

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed access arrangements would not comprise a serious traffic hazard due to the substandard access from the existing road network, and off Palmer Road. The existing road network and the existing access off Palmer Road have not been completed to Fingal County Council’s standards for taking in charge. The proposed development would by virtue of its failure to account for the issues raised within the submitted Road Safety Audit, and by virtue of its failure to address the substandard receiving environment with regard to access, be considered contrary to Objective DMSO118 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 (Road Safety Measures), and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 223343032c9a4b0e3369fc93b205e03520b718516f947b66bbec3e219642e9b9

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

1. The subdivision of the existing site and continued use of the 2 no. existing dwellings on site as separate/independent residential units would result in the material contravention of condition no. 2 of Reg. Ref. F08A/1067 (PL06F.231677), which requires the use of the cottage to be restricted to an ancillary residential use directly associated with the use of the existing house on the site, and the cottage to not be sub-divided from the site either by way of sale or letting or otherwise. The proposed development, if permitted, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the surrounding area and would set an undesirable precedent for similar development in the surrounding area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The subject site is located within the ‘GB – Greenbelt’ zoning of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. Accordingly, the applicant is required to demonstrate compliance with the Rural Settlement Strategy as outlined under Section 3.5.15.3 Fingal Rural Settlement Strategy Rural Generated Housing Need, Policy SPQHP46 and Table 3.5 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. While the applicant has submitted some documentation, it is considered that the submitted documentation is insufficient and does not demonstrate compliance with Section 3.5.15.3 Fingal Rural Settlement Strategy Rural Generated Housing Need, Policy SPQHP46 and Table 3.5 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the surrounding area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The applicant has not submitted a sightline drawing for the existing entrance and the required sightlines at the existing entrance along Rathbeale Road have not been achieved, which in conjunction with the proposed intensification of the subject site would be considered to endanger public safety and create a serious traffic hazard. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to Objective DMSO118 - Road Safety Measures of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the surrounding area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 89def68953f9c977c028fd58ac0d0e9b93cb3d7075fe76d6b908536be433f7b5

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

1. The proposed development seeks the retention of an unauthorised structure i.e. dwelling, however it does not meet the criteria and policies of the Fingal Rural Housing Settlement Strategy Rural Generated Housing need. With regard to change of use, no evidence has been submitted to demonstrate any active use (including agricultural use) at the application site. The application submission fails to demonstrate how the development to be retained would either protect or promote in a balanced way, the development of agriculture and rural related enterprise, or the built and cultural heritage of the area. The development is therefore considered unacceptable in principle having regard to the RU zoning objective of the Fingal Development Plan, 2023-2029, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development, by reason of its design and finish which includes features more accustomed to a residential dwelling, would not be suitable in this rural location or acceptable as a permanent structure on the site in the long term given its prefabricated nature. The development would be seriously injurious to the rural amenities of the surrounding area. The development proposed and for retention is therefore considered to be in direct conflict with Objectives DMSO100, DMSO101 and DMSO102 of the Fingal Development Plan, would set an undesirable precedent, and, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The applicant has provided insufficient information to show that the existing site access has been designed appropriately to allow for safe traffic movement for agricultural vehicles, or any traffic movements to and from the site. The development is therefore considered to comprise a serious traffic hazard given the proximity of the site access to the four-way junction to the south of the site. The development subject of this application is therefore considered contrary to Objective DMSO118 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029, and contrary to the proper and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 34f9b581e37cf69a471fea361468185af34429c293b727e8f9114a5617f8768a

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

1. Having regard to the RS Residential zoning objective for the subject site in the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029, which seeks to provide for residential development and protect and improve residential amenity, and to the policy requirements of Section 14.10.4 Garden Rooms, it is considered that the proposed 42sqm garden room sought for retention, by virtue of its excessive scale, massing, and footprint, fails to respect the character of the area and is not subordinate to the main dwelling. The structure would represent an overbearing and visually obtrusive form of development, leading to a significant negative impact on the residential amenities of the principle and adjoining properties, resulting in a congested pattern of development. The development results in the overdevelopment of the subject site, leaving a substandard residual private open space of c. 25 sq.m. The proposed development would seriously injure the residential amenities of the occupants of the main dwelling, would be contrary Section 14.10.4 Garden Rooms and to the RS zoning objective of the Fingal Development Plan 2023 -2029. The proposal 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: 96f61d924ba3105592a6945175d90b952f3cc1700bb5d4d71720d699b95f4867

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

1. The proposed development, by reason of its design, scale, materials and finishes would represent a development which cannot be considered subordinate to the existing dwelling house and is out of keeping with existing developments within the complex and is visually obtrusive. The development is therefore contrary to DM standard 4 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022 -2028, would set an undesirable precedent for similar future development and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Based on the information received, the planning authority is not satisfied that surface water generated on site can be satisfactorily disposed of on site. Therefore, if permitted as proposed the development would materially contravene Objective WW7 and DM Standard 67 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

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 13fff28a38dd754381f3b0e4a272621ccd8a00480a058a447c528003950ccac7

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

1. Having regard to Section 42(1)(c)(ii) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), the Planning Authority is not satisfied that substantial works were carried out pursuant to the planning permission during the appropriate period. The statutory requirements necessary to permit an Extension of Duration have therefore not been complied with and the application is refused.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 3979675960a01542640fb6ec5959d1a2d98696d69a1fd379ece1f7c5800eebac

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

1. Based on the information submitted, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the principle of development is acceptable at this location as the applicant has not provided robust justification for a new entrance along a regional road. Having regard to the lack of adequate information regarding the use of the subject lands and lands within the control of the applicant within this application, the lack of evidence of approval of use of the lands by Dept. Agriculture Food and the Marine, the admission of existing adequate access to the site within the documentation to the Department and the existing access to the site currently in use by the applicant along the regional road, the Planning Authority are not satisfied with the justification for the proposed development and consider the principle of development unacceptable at this sensitive location. The subject development, as proposed, is therefore not considered acceptable in principle or in accordance with sustainable planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The Planning Authority is not amenable to the removal of the existing mature trees and hedgerow along the regional road to facilitate the development. This proposal is therefore considered not in accordance with DM Standard 47: Field Patterns, Stone Walls, Trees and Hedgerows of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 and is therefore not considered in accordance with sustainable planning and development.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The Planning Authority are not satisfied that the proposed development of a new entrance onto the regional road meets sightline requirements of the Galway County Development Plan 2022- 2028 and therefore poses a road and traffic safety risk as the sightline measurements/exit visibility checks were not taken from 2.4m from the edge of the carriageway. The proposal therefore is not in accordance with DM Standard 28: Sight Distances Required for Access onto National, Regional, Local and Private Roads and poses a road and traffic safety risk and is therefore not considered in accordance with sustainable planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 53910405fa0a8f93c2117614b07aaa05ec70eb1bc21f6529337715652f8d13e4

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

1. Having regard to the proposed excessive development siting setback and associated elongated access provision, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would effectively assimilate into this rural setting and is not in accordance with Policy Objectives LCM 1, DM Standard 8: Site Selection and Design, and RH 9 Design Guidelines of the Galway County Council Development Plan 2022-2028. Therefore, the proposed development due to its proposed location is considered disorderly ribbon development in the open countryside and would set an undesirable precedent in the area if permitted. Thus, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The applicant has demonstrated through submission of family land folios that alternative lands are available on the family holding in the local area, and therefore the proposed development is not compliant with Policy Objective RH 14 Backland Development in the Open Countryside of the Galway County Council Development Plan 2022-2028. Therefore, the proposed development is not in accordance with Rural Housing Policy objectives of the Galway County Council Development Plan 2022-2028, would set an undesirable precedent in the area if permitted, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area in this regard.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. Having regard to the existing deficiency in the road network serving the proposed development, the distance from the nearest public road including the poor vehicular access to it, including considerations of capacity, width and alignment, or the surface or structural condition of the pavement or absence thereof, which is considered would render that network, or any part of it, unsuitable to carry the increased road traffic likely to result from the proposed development and thus would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

4. Based on the information submitted with the planning application in regard to the access proposed off a private agricultural laneway to the public road, the necessary sightlines of 70 meters in both directions measured to the nearside edge have not been demonstrated. Therefore, the planning authority is not satisfied that the aforementioned sight distances can be achieved at this location in accordance with Development Management Standard 28 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028. In the absence of sufficient details regarding achievable safe sight distances the Planning Authority is not satisfied that safe access arrangements to serve the proposed development can be achieved and to grant the development as proposed would be contrary to DM Standard 28 and would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard, obstruction of road users or otherwise and thus would 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: 945e73b775347546d8b9fb4e5baf2a5d69caf44dafa683b55d174f42de1b6c9d

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

1. On consideration of the proposed commercial facility which would generate an intensification of use with creation of additional traffic over and above the unauthorised access point onto the N67 whilst being at variance to National Policy, Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities’ DECLG, (2012). Whilst Having regard to the restricted nature of the site in terms of generated turning movements, impaired and overlapping visibility splays, interalia location and scale of significant intervention to public road margins & infrastructure in the form of significant alterations to footpaths & drainage flows with the creation of expansive access points (substandard development junction) whilst proximal to the heavily trafficked N67/ R458 Junction. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would lead to a pattern of conflicting traffic movements directly impacting the N67 route and its junction with the R458 which would be prejudicial to public safety, particularly to vulnerable road users. Accordingly, if permitted as proposed, the development as proposed would interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the public road and would endanger public safety by reason of pedestrian and traffic hazard, obstruction of road users, or otherwise, and therefore would 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: ff82005ffcdcf7ba9920aff0c3471a111cdd1fc80a1090ee30a224e290a627a9

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

1. Having regard to observations on site inspection in the form of high and stagnant watertable outside the height of the winter period, the poor/peaty drainage characteristics and features observed on site and being cognizant of the wider environmental sensitivities of the subject site and localised catchment, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the safe disposal of domestic effluent on site can be guaranteed in strict accordance with the EPA Code of Practice Manual 2021 for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses (PE ≤10), particularly in the height of the winter watertable. Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would be prejudicial to public health, would be contrary to Objective WW6 and DM Standard 38 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022- 2028, would pose an unacceptable risk to surface water and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development overlies the Corrib catchment and is aligned to the Lough Corrib Special Area of Conservation which is designated European Sites of ecological importance forming part of the Natura 2000 network of sites of highest biodiversity importance for rare and threatened natural habitats and flora and fauna species across the European Union. The Planning Authority, by virtue of the watercourse/hydrological connectivity from the subject site to the said designation and owing to the poor drainage characteristics observed on site, the lacunae associated with the application content with respect to input from a suitably qualified ecologist and being cognisant of the precautionary principle, is not satisfied that significant negative effect on the integrity and conservation objectives of the Lough Corrib SAC can be ruled out. Therefore the development if permitted has potential to have significant negative adverse impact on the integrity and qualifying interests/conservation objectives of the said SAC site, would contravene materially objectives NHB 1, 2 & 3 and development management standard 50 contained in the current Galway County Development Plan, and therefore 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: 957b5747b1e0b032286afe5be466c9e39dfde4ef57d3c07e8d77bcf2cc7f5079

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

1. The Planning Authority are not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated compliance with Policy Objective RH 2 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 to develop their first home in a rural area which is under strong urban pressure within the GCTPS. Based on the information submitted with the planning application, it is considered that the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that they have a rural generated housing need at this location nor comply with the requirements of Policy Objective RH 2. Therefore, the proposed development is considered contrary to the rural housing provisions of the said county development plan. Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would contravene materially Policy Objective RH 2 contained in the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028, would be contrary to ministerial guidelines issued to the planning authorities under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), would set an undesirable precedent for similar future development in the area, and would 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: 5aa8b9f6e2361c2a8d5f86d190895a42dda15ac8c998155fa966dee3ebe8bb41

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

1. The location of the proposed dwelling would be in close proximity to a 2.4m x 2.4m diversion culvert which was installed as part of Flood Relief Works in Tralee. The proposed development would not be compatible with the current and future operation and maintenance of the culvert which would give rise to flood risk management issues causing potential harm to human health and or the built environment. The proposed development 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: 19f43defa706e89abc5c21ccb56724b1f7778a5684fadd9183cc36dd53e27aea

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

1. It is the policy of Kerry County Council as set out in Section 5.7 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028 in relation to ‘Renovation and Restoration of Existing and Vacant Buildings Situated in Rural Areas’ to support applications for the sensitive restoration of disused vernacular or traditional buildings as permanent places of residence where the structure to be restored/renovated constitutes an identifiable dwelling, with the walls and roof being intact. In this case, the provisions of Section 5.7 of the County Development Plan would not apply as the building proposed to be renovated and extended is in a ruinous condition with a partially collapsed roof and the use of the building as a dwelling house has been long abandoned. The proposed development would contravene the policies of the Council in relation to the renovation/restoration of vacant buildings in the rural landscape 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: acbe612fad237be1f6814f104a1d35ad4c9577a1b7a2515bd56d4cfed986dc2f

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

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development for the retention of the slatted cattle shed, concrete apron and associated site works, and the proposed new slatted cattle shed adjoining existing shed, concrete apron and all associated site works and concrete slab for storage of silage bales, would be developed without risk to the environment having regard to the insufficient information to demonstrate that surface and soiled water will be adequately segregated on site, and that surface water would be adequately disposed of on site, rather than discharge to the drain. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development which is located within an area of extreme groundwater vulnerability would not be prejudicial to ground or surface waters and 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: e5c38518bf81df04f66b77a477755829ad8b51a180e1a830366293a18a2b7f5d

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

1. The Planning Authority hereby refuses this application to extend the appropriate period of the permission ref 22/114, in accordance with Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (As Amended).

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: c26d1cfb5445c79e910da2f4df0adaa2751d70a1cd2efeeb524034a36a815f75

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

1. The proposed development, by reason of the excessive size and scale of the garage and creation of a large area of hardstanding within a residential site in a rural area would be visually obtrusive and detract from the rural character of the area. In addition to this a grant of permission would facilitate the unauthorised use of a vehicular entrance and hardstanding driveway both of which have the potential to result in a traffic hazard given their direct access on to a Local Road. The proposal 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: c9688fc85c7d369d49561743c8d6bfd97b7e4138732acb4f31cda2d0623ece99