Refusal decisions · 20 July–26 July 2026

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

Source note: The report gives site areas of 0.68 ha and 0.068 ha, and uses stream suffixes _10 and _010. The adopted first ground pairs Rogerstown Estuary SAC with code 004122. These source details are reproduced without geographical or identifier correction.

1. In the absence of a Screening for Appropriate Assessment as part of the application, there is a gap in the information available to the Planning Authority and it is not possible to conclude with certainty whether or not the proposed development either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, in view of best scientific knowledge and in view of the sites’ conservation objectives, would be likely to have a significant effect on any designated European Sites (in particular the Rogerstown Estuary Special Protection Area (004015) and the Rogerstown Estuary Special Area of Conservation (004122)). Having regard to case law of the Irish High Court and the CJEU (e.g. Case C-258/11, Sweetman and others) which established that determinations cannot have lacunae and must contain complete, precise and definitive findings capable of removing all reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of a project on a designated European Site, it is not certain that the proposal would not result in adverse impacts on designated European Sites. The development as proposed, is therefore contrary to Objective DMSO1 of the Fingal Development Plan, and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 12

2. Insufficient information has been provided in relation to the applicants’ agricultural enterprise and the status of the existing agricultural entrance to fully justify the proposal for a 2nd agricultural entrance on site in accordance with the objectives of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. The proposed development would result in an excessive level of individual entrances at this location without sufficient justification and the loss of a substantial number of existing trees and hedgerow which contravenes Objective DMSO115 and Objective SPQHO91 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. To permit the development as proposed, would be seriously injurious to the visual and rural amenities of the area, would set an undesirable precedent for similar inappropriate development in this location and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 12

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 9796e4ef609c169a3dbbc16a2e66f45f95def2b0ad58adb51ec74c51d89975ce

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

Source note: The assessment states an existing area of 195 m², an extension of 126 m² and a completed total of 316 m². Those figures do not add up as printed; no corrected total or component has been substituted.

1. The development is located on lands zoned GB-Greenbelt under the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 where the zoning objective seeks to protect and provide for a Greenbelt. The proposed development, seeking an extension of an existing childcare facility is permitted within the GB zoning in circumstances where it is demonstrated that the use is ancillary to the use of the dwelling as a main residence. Having regard to the size and scale of the childcare facility proposed, its location and functional relationship to the host dwelling together with existing access arrangements, it is considered that the development if permitted would no longer be considered ancillary to the existing dwelling on site which would contravene the Greenbelt zoning objective and would result in the unreasonable intensification of extensions onsite contrary to objective Z03 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 11

2. Insufficient Information/justification has been provided by the applicant in relation to the extension of the existing childcare facility to fully assess the proposed development in terms of its impact on the residential amenity of the existing dwelling and surrounding area which would not be considered acceptable. Therefore, to permit the proposed development in the absence of sufficient justification and details regarding the proposed operation would set a precedent for further substandard development in this location which would be highly inappropriate and contrary to the GB- Greenbelt zoning objective which seeks to Protect and provide for a Greenbelt, DMSO79 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 11

3. The proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of serious traffic hazard because the applicant has provided insufficient information to show that the proposed entrance on site has been designed appropriately to allow for safe traffic movement. The development is therefore 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 12

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 458c44725a1c94d24e511e7d96ef8f2ad29eb71832dcad14b4f4b0de665ade76

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

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the development will not result in the creation of a traffic hazard by reason of the intensification of use of the existing side garden access to serve an additional dwelling. It is therefore considered that the development will endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard, will lead to a conflict between pedestrian and road users and will be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 12

2. The subject site is zoned RS Residential with the objective to provide for residential development and protect and improve residential amenity within the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. The dwelling by virtue of its layout, is contrived within the restricted plot and is considered overdevelopment which will adversely impact the surrounding pattern of development and the existing residential amenity of surrounding properties. Furthermore, the dwelling by virtue of its design, poorly integrates and fails to respect the height, massing, appearance and the overall character of surrounding dwellings and is an incongruous form of development which is not architecturally appropriate within the streetscene of Saddlers Grove. As such, the development materially contravenes the RS Residential zoning objective, Section 14.10.1, Objectives DMSO26, DMSO31 & DMSO32 and Table 14.4 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 and will set an inappropriate precedent for other similar forms of development. The development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 12

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 180c76b90b94991026fa05652328e0ab9153a5eb6ad98c7e9a72ba5921140afd

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

1. The subject site is occupied by an existing thatched cottage which is recorded on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH 30410610). It is considered that the development as proposed involves interventions that are not reversible and destroy historic fabric, represents a loss of Architectural Heritage that is unacceptable and would be contrary to Policy Objectives AH 1, AH 3 & AH 6, and DM Standard 58 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028. Therefore, to grant permission for the proposed development would establish an undesirable precedent for similar future developments in the area and therefore would 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 scale, massing and design would represent a development which cannot be considered subordinate to the existing dwelling house. 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

3. Based on the information submitted and the plans and particulars received, the achievable sightlines from the site entrance onto the national road have not been demonstrated. Therefore, the Planning Authority is not satisfied with the required sightlines can be achieved at this location and to grant the development as proposed would be contrary to DM Standard 28 and DM standard 33(a) of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would endanger public safety by reason of 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

4. The applicant has not included any information on the condition or capacity of the existing septic tank proposed to serve the proposed development. In the absence of such information, the planning authority is not satisfied that wastewater arising from the proposed development can be satisfactorily treated and disposed of on site. Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would be prejudicial to public health, contrary to Policy Objective WW6 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022 – 2028 and Policy Objective NHB 1, NHB 2 and NHB 3 and therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

5. The applicant has not included any information on the existing garage to be demolished or the proposed garage to be constructed. In the absence of such information, the planning authority cannot carry out a fulsome evaluation. Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would be contrary to Development Management Standard 6 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022 – 2028 and therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2, 3

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 9aadaa632e8abf5834e694dc791816eae67e0a53aed2549920862b96d74668ab

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

1. Having regard to the failure of the Applicant to demonstrate satisfactory evidence in relation to the planning status for the duplication of entrances on site, which was not permitted under the parent permission Pl. Ref. 95/1227, and which is not subject to retention under the current application, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would if permitted and in the absence of demonstratable contrary evidence, perpetuate and intensity existing unauthorised development on site. Accordingly, to grant the development as proposed would therefore be contrary to the principles of 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: 549ba5829420ff6b8742d5b345247b52815a6de768d055be0a78a2e99851b4aa

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

1. It is considered that the structures impact negatively on Ballyheigue Castle, a designated Protected Structure, Ref. No. RPS KY-21301401 14-1-A, and the Ballyheigue Castle walls which adjoin the proposed site. Furthermore, it is considered that the structures contravene Objectives BE-GO-04 & BE- GO -07 of the Listowel Municipal District Local Area Plan 2020-2026 and Objectives KCDP 8-40 and KCDP 8-50 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028. The development is, therefore, 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: e05796e4de492d09366ac11edf0cf4db5d31eb9703ec226aef3e1b39d058a861

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

1. On the basis of the information submitted the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development includes adequate measures to ensure the protection of the site and adjoining lands/sites from potential flooding. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed erection of a dwelling at this location by reason of its siting and design would be unduly obtrusive by virtue of its visual impact on the landscape and would interfere with the character of the landscape, which is necessary to preserve, in accordance with Objective KCDP 11- 78 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. It is considered that the proposed development would, seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity by reason of over-looking and interference with privacy 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: 169250a8728ea1d4cbcf6189e261afd646b8f4f431b5f6bf437c9748e6182636

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

1. Having regard to the proposed density, which is over 90 dwellings per hectare, and where the site is located within the Naas Architectural Conservation Area and in immediate proximity to a Protected Structure (Almshouse (NS19-011)), where the proposed façade of Block 2 would be located approximately 0.74m from the boundary wall of the protected structure, and where substandard private amenity and open space lacking quality, functionality, size and useability is provided, and having regard to Policy and Objective 3.1, Figure 3.3, Section 3.4 and Section 3.3.6 of The Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements, Guidelines for Planning Authorities (January 2024) which require ‘in the case of very small infill sites…need to respond to the scale and form of surrounding development, to protect the amenities of surrounding properties’ where the design response ‘may take precedence over the densities set out in this Chapter’, the proposed infill development would be an overdevelopment of the site, and would therefore be contrary to current policy objectives and if granted would seriously injure residential and town centre amenities and property in the vicinity.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. Section 10 of the Naas Local Area Plan 2021-2028 seeks to ‘integrate new and regenerated areas within the historic core in a contemporary manner that complements the existing urban structure and heritage of the town’ and ‘to ensure that best practice urban design principles are applied to all new development, based on the principle that well-planned and integrated development enhances the sustainability, attractiveness and liveability of an area. The proposed development fails to provide ‘enclosure through the construction of strong urban edges and legible built form’, fails to provide ‘open spaces with character’, ‘a focal point’ and not overly dominated by hard landscaping and fails to ensure that attractiveness in new and regenerated buildings is achieved through the use of layout and material finishes. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Objective URD 1.2 of the Naas Local Area Plan 2021-2028, which requires that development be in keeping with the relevant Urban Design Principles outlined in Section 10.3.2, and furthermore would be contrary to Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 objectives (UD P1, UD 01) which require ‘a high standard of urban design to be integrated into the design and layout of all new development and ensure compliance with the principles of healthy placemaking’. The proposed development would therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3, 4

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: c84286fbad5fddd340db93af42e8721f41f4cb8795ab975f887c2f4cfd86f1b4