Refusal decisions · 3 August–9 August 2026

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

1. The subject development is located off the R473 Regional Road, where a speed limit of 80kph applies, where there are horizontal and vertical curves on the road, and where there is a straight white line along the centre of the road. It is considered that the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard on the R473 Regional Road because of the proposed provision of two access points where sight lines are restricted to the northeast by reason of the road alignment and where the additional traffic movements to which the development would give rise would interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the Regional road. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

2. It is considered that the proposed development by virtue of its location on the estuary side of the R473 where there are uninterrupted views to the estuary from the public road, would be contrary to the Objective CDP 14.5 ‘Heritage landscapes’ which requires that sites have been selected to avoid visually prominent locations. The selection of the site in the first instance, and the location of the dwellings on the estuary side of the road, notwithstanding being within a designated Cluster, contravenes this objective. The proposed development would therefore be injurious to the visual amenities and rural character of the landscape, would set an undesirable precedent for further developments at this location and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: a92799bad1e81333fc2db4799238a80c0127fca15b546fb6836dad78cccc8bb8

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

1. The proposed development, by reason of the failure of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed accommodation is required to meet the housing needs of an older person or a person with a disability and having regard to the information submitted, would not constitute ancillary accommodation of the type envisaged under Section 6.6.23 of the Cork County Development Plan 2022. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Objectives SC 6-11 and SC 6-12 of the Cork County Development Plan 2022 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: b9884196804d19d7de411ad9f55aec3018fb6759666410add8ed9102989141a8

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

1. The proposed development would be located on a site to the north west of Mallow town, overlapping the defined greenbelt of Mallow town and an area identified as a Rural Area Under Strong Urban Influence. On the basis of the information submitted and having regard to the lack of a justification for the proposed development, its nature, siting, design, layout and configuration of the site along with the excessive vehicular entrances and driveway, it is considered that the proposed development would be haphazard and disorderly and it would detract from the amenities of the area. It is considered that the proposal would be contrary to objective HE 16-21 of the County Development Plan 2022 which seeks to ensure that new development respects the character, pattern and tradition of existing places and fits appropriately into the landscape and objectives GI 14-9, BE 15-2 and BE 15-6 of the County Development Plan 2022 which seek to protect hedgerows, trees and biodiversity. The proposal would set an undesirable precedent for similar developments. It is considered that the proposed development 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: 20c5d4cf41bf09aa2f6ad8d453410546e2c5f2827edba30d9e681895596ff43c

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

1. Having regard to the character of the area and the pattern of development which occurs adjacent to the site, it is considered that, by reason of its scale, design, height, and the extent of site coverage, the proposed dwelling would represent the overdevelopment of a small, restrictive and physically constrained urban site, which would be out of character with the surrounding development and would have an overbearing impact on adjoining dwellings that would detract from their residential amenity. Furthermore, the proposed development fails to meet the minimum standards as set out within the Quality Housing for Sustainable Communities – Best Practice Guidelines for Delivering Homes, Sustainable Communities (2007) Ministerial Guidelines, in addition to the provision of deficient private amenity space standards, as set out in the Guidelines on Sustainable Residential Development. The proposed development does not provide an acceptable standard of residential amenity for future residents. Therefore, the proposed development represents a substandard form of development that would seriously injure the amenities of the area and of adjoining properties, would be inconsistent with Objective ZU 18-9: Existing Residential/Mixed Residential and Other Uses of the Cork County Development Plan 2022 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: a7f8d042e5391a40d924c95eee7a32c4e6fc40d6c74ededba534890e812822dc

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

1. The proposed dwelling and access road, by reason of its elevated, exposed siting, steeply sloping topography and visual prominence within the rural landscape, would constitute an inappropriately sited form of development, that would be visually obtrusive and would fail to integrate into the surrounding rural landscape. The proposed development would seriously detract from the visual and scenic amenities of the rural area, would not respect the natural topography, and would give rise to a visually obtrusive development which would be visually obtrusive and would not fit appropriately into the rural landscape. Accordingly, the proposed development would, if permitted, materially contravene Objectives RP 5-22, GI 14-9 (a), (c) and (d) and HE 16-21 (a) and (d) of the Cork County Development Plan, 2022 and would not be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development is located within a rural area categorised as a Transitional Rural Area, where it is an objective of the Cork County Development Plan, 2022 to facilitate only the genuine rural-generated housing needs of the local community. On the basis of the information submitted, the applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with any of the categories of housing need set out under Objective RP 5-7 (a)–(g). In the absence of such evidence, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated a rural generated need for a house at this location. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would conflict with the settlement policy and objective RP 5-7 of the Cork County Development Plan, 2022 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: 0d724ee03db6324c5ffd8f2b1904aec400669d786eaae6790e857b25f2b433c5

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

Source note: Open the official case file for 26/50090, then its documents and select “Notification of Decision” dated 6 August 2026. The quoted refusal grounds are on PDF page 2.

1. The development comprises of the retention of a mobile home as additional residential accommodation within the curtilage of an existing renovated cottage. The mobile home is not temporary accommodation associated with the construction of a permitted dwelling and has not been demonstrated to constitute ancillary accommodation for a dependent relative in accordance with Policy RH-P-8 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024–2030 (as varied). There is no policy provision within the Plan supporting the permanent or long-term retention of a mobile home as supplementary residential or holiday accommodation within the curtilage of an existing rural dwelling. Having regard to the temporary nature and standard of the structure, the development constitutes a substandard, haphazard and unsustainable form of residential accommodation and would establish an undesirable precedent for similar development. Accordingly, the development is contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

2. The subject site is located within an area designated as Especially High Scenic Amenity under the County Donegal Development Plan 2024–2030 (as varied). Policy L-P-1 seeks to protect such areas and provides that only developments of strategic importance, or developments provided for by another policy of the Plan, may be considered. Policy RH- P-9 also requires rural residential development to be sensitively designed and capable of effective assimilation into the receiving landscape. By reason of its temporary form, external appearance, proportions and absence of architectural quality or vernacular character, the mobile home fails to integrate with the restored traditional cottage or the character and amenity of the receiving landscape. Its retention would detract from the visual amenities and rural character of this sensitive area and would establish an undesirable precedent for similar substandard development. The proposal therefore contravenes Policies L-P-1 and RH-P-9 and is contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

3. It is a policy of the Planning Authority under Policy RH-P-9(b)(iv) of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024–2030 (as varied) to require the safe and efficient disposal of effluent in a manner that does not pose a risk to public health and accords with the applicable Environmental Protection Agency Code of Practice. The proposed mobile home is to connect to the wastewater treatment system previously permitted to serve the renovated cottage under Plan Ref. 24/50156. In the absence of technical information demonstrating that the existing system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional hydraulic and organic loading arising from the mobile home, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that effluent can be safely and effectively treated and dispersed within the site. Accordingly, the development would be prejudicial to public health, would contravene Policy RH-P-9 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: fdd977e7d35ef3d54e84b908d26a368829369b430ad3b6fd0780b4a4ca10b4a9

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

Source note: Ground 2 of the council’s 2 grounds is reproduced in full. Ground 1 is withheld because it contains personal circumstances. Original numbering is retained. Open the official case file for 26/61179, then its documents and select “Notification of Decision” dated 6 August 2026. The quoted refusal grounds are on PDF page 2.

2. Having regard to the significant existing pressure from one-off rural housing in the surrounding area and to the location of the site at the outer edge of an existing loose grouping of dwellings, it is considered that the proposed development would extend the existing pattern of housing into undeveloped rural lands rather than consolidate an established cluster or occupy a defined infill site. The proposal would consequently contribute to a haphazard and progressively suburban pattern of development and would erode the rural character and amenity of the area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy RH-P-9(a)(i) and (iii) and Policy L-P-2 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 (as varied) 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: d3b1aab0bdd2a3025bdee16dad5eb440b1e1f2107c15deb5f545adba79d5526e

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 proposed development would not adversely affect the operation and safety of the National (N2 and M50 motorway) and Regional (R122) Road Routes. The development would therefore be contrary to Objectives DMSO115 and CMO40 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023 – 2029. The proposed development, by itself or by the precedent which the grant of permission for it would set for other relevant development, would adversely affect the use of a national road or other major road by traffic. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 60

2. The proposed development, in relation to Plot 3 of the application site, by virtue of the scale and nature of the external storage use together with the lack of sufficient information in relation to the end user, would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area and adjoining properties and would be contrary to the GE Zoning Objective, Section 14.15.1, Table 14.15, Objective DMSO89 and Policy EEP2 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023 – 2029 in respect of design in industrial areas, setting an undesirable precedent for other similar development, and would not be considered the best economic use of the GE zoned lands. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 60

3. The Planning Authority is not satisfied, given the lack of information submitted, that the proposed development would not adversely affect the conservation and preservation of a European Site, is contrary to Objective DMSO145 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023 – 2029 and therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 60

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: bc8d2742bb97c50f59c8c4ae34cbf99027c7d9de194553bd00e9642357214e5e

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

1. The subject site is zoned “TC” Town and District Centre with the objective to “protect and enhance the special physical and social character of town and district centres and provide and/or improve urban facilities” within the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. The two-storey high structural frame with timber trellis by virtue of its design, appearance and materiality, is haphazard, overly dominant, deficient in quality and is an incongruous form of development at odds with the visual amenity of Clonsilla Road. The proposed balcony feature at the first-floor will result in significant overlooking and loss of privacy impact on the private rear amenity serving the neighbouring dwelling to the north-west. Therefore, the development will seriously injure the neighbouring residential amenity and depreciate the value of the neighbouring property. As such, the development contravenes the “TC” Town and District Centre zoning objective, Section 14.4.5, Table 14.1 & Objective GINHO59 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 23

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: d88bb8979d368da9384744cc702ee857fc05d04f9fe802ea6d991d3dcd56290b

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

1. The proposed development, by virtue of its design and layout and particularly its relationship to adjacent Community Infrastructure zoned lands to the west, is considered to represent unsustainable and undesirable development of the site which would prejudice the future development of the adjoining CI lands. The proposal would contravene materially Table 14.4: Infill Development and Objective SPQHO42 Development of Underutilised Infill, Corner and Backland Sites of the Fingal Development Plan 2023–2029, and if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for similar forms of development, contrary to the principles of proper planning and sustainable development in the area

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 6b79cee99b1278fd7c4362ef5a2192bd8436d2c05c8f680a7bdb046a5677ab05

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 and appearance, represents an incongruous form of development which fails to provide for the sensitive design approach required to protect the established character of the Lusk Architectural Conservation Area (ACA). The proposed development would be visually intrusive at this prominent corner site and would result in undue negative impacts on the visual amenities of the area and on the Lusk ACA. The proposed development would be contrary to the “TC” zoning objective, Policies SPQHP41, HCAP14 & HCAP15, Objectives SPQHO45, HCAO24 & DMSO186, Section 14.10.2 and Table 14.24 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 and, therefore, 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: 103302dfd7d9cebafb6707259397eb2141daca170ccf051d5c79b5442328519f

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

1. The dwelling is located within a rent pressure zone and a proposed use of the dwelling for commercial short term let, located within a residential estate, would be controlled under the Galway City Development Plan 2023 – 2029 Section 3.2, Housing Strategy, Policy 3.1, which states it is the policy to “Ensure the provisions of the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2019 and the Planning and Development Act 2000 (Exempted Development) (No. 2) Regulations 2019 and any other future legislation and guidelines are applied where planning permission is required to control short-term letting accommodation to prevent a negative impact on housing supply and /or an over-concentration of such uses. Notwithstanding this, where planning consent is required under legislation for short-term letting, there will be a presumption against allowing such a use in view of the status of the city defined as a rent pressure zone”, therefore, such a proposal is contrary to the stated policy of Galway City Development Plan 2023 – 2029.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The use of this dwelling for short-term letting would be contrary to the Galway City Development Plan 2023 – 2029, Chapter 11, as such would be a commercial venture located within a mature housing development, consisting of single residential dwellings. The development would render it contrary to the objectives of the Condition No 5 of Pl.Ref.No. 08/733 and the Galway City Development Plan 2023 - 2029, resulting in a deterioration in the residential character of the area, depreciating the value of residential properties by way of nuisance and impact on adjacent rear gardens and residences, level of commercial customer throughput and commercial noise generated by the guests, and the associated increased commercial traffic movements and hours of such activities, would be in excess of what has been the norm within this mature residential housing development injuring the amenities enjoyed by the wider community and would adversely impact upon the residential amenities of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 9040ad7cf21aec858f86385027d99154bdd679a52186fe710ab9e9d98afe6adb

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

1. Having regard to the nature of the proposed development and the evidence on site that there is further unauthorised development in the form of an unauthorised garage on the site of the existing residential development associated with planning application Ref. No. 06/2406, unauthorised farm buildings on the site of the farm yard associated with planning application Ref.No.06/2409 and a multiplicity of unauthorised site entrances within the confines of the development site, as well as to the apparent evidence of unauthorised commercial use of the shed proposed for retention and of the existing farmyard, it is considered that the proposed development would potentially result in the consolidation and intensification of unauthorised development. Therefore, it is considered by the Planning Authority that the proposed development would, if permitted, perpetuate and intensify existing unauthorised development on site and it would be inappropriate for the Planning Authority to consider a grant of permission for the proposed development in such circumstances.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Having regard to the absence of satisfactory updated information on the existing and proposed surface water management, the existing wastewater treatment system serving the residential unit part of this application and the disposal of any waste disposal generated by activities associated with the farm yard which is also part of this application, and having regard to the unauthorised developments on the subject site, the Planning Authority is not satisfied, in the absence of contrary evidence, that the safe disposal of domestic effluent on site, of any agricultural waste and resulting surface water can be strictly guaranteed. Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would be prejudicial to public health, would be contrary to Policy Objectives AD4, WW6 and WW7 and to DM Standards 14 and 38 DM of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028, would pose an unacceptable risk to groundwater water and therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. Having regard to the provisions of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028, it is considered that the development as existing and with an haphazard design does not reflect the permitted applications at this locations and if accepted as existing and as proposed, would constitute a potential traffic hazard, and would interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjoining public road, would endanger the public safety and would contravene Policy Objective NNR 2 - Safeguard Regional and Local Roads, DM Standard 28 and DM Standard 33 of the Galway 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

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 1b297f28c7523f9f4a3c40c8bfde2f6f5c9a23c0c5b00657ce73bbaa3db31825

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

1. Having regard to the submitted application details, the reasons for delay outlined by the applicant, the site inspection undertaken on 30th July 2026 and the requirements of Section 42 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. Accordingly, it is considered that the permitted development does not comply with the requirements of Section 42(1)(c)(iii) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). The Planning Authority therefore cannot facilitate the extension of duration sought.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: a46625ab7f4f630e57775a9d0cc5fd122d35f5c886e09b1ecf85de7371c528df

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

1. Having regard to the deficiencies, inconsistencies and unsatisfactory justification contained within the submitted Site Characterisation Assessment Report and accompanying application documentation, including the groundwater conditions evident on site and the apparent presence of water within the trial hole, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the suitability of the site for the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system has been adequately demonstrated in accordance with the EPA Code of Practice for Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems Serving Single Houses (PE ≤10) 2021. Furthermore, the Planning Authority notes that no established dwelling exists on the site to be served by the proposed wastewater treatment infrastructure. In the absence of sufficient planning justification for the provision of a standalone wastewater treatment system in an unserviced rural area, the proposal would facilitate the inappropriate proliferation of individual wastewater treatment infrastructure and would undermine the proper and sustainable planning of such areas. Accordingly, the proposed development would materially contravene Policy Objective WW6 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 and Development Management Standard 38 (Effluent Treatment Plants), would pose an unacceptable risk to groundwater and surface water quality, would be prejudicial to public health and safety, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Having regard to the failure of the Applicant to demonstrate conclusive evidence in relation to the planning status of the existing building on site as a private residence, in conjunction with (inter alia) the inadequate vehicular access provision, the lack of appropriate open space provision and the proposal to hereby augment and further intensify the said entity, the planning authority considers that the proposed development would if permitted in light of the aforementioned lacunae 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: c234b983a65cf3b323a2ffb6a0b503d9ce6ecb93e190314bdd75b449edeb6eb2

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

1. The proposed extension, by reason of its scale, mass, bulk and siting 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

2. The Planning Authority notes that the applicant has not submitted sufficient information to demonstrate that the dwelling house as constructed, including associated site services, together with the existing site boundaries and dual vehicular entrances, constitute authorised development. In the absence of evidence confirming the authorised status of these elements, the Planning Authority cannot satisfactorily assess the proposed development. Accordingly, the proposed development is considered unacceptable in principle. The granting of permission in these circumstances could facilitate or perpetuate unauthorised development and would set an undesirable precedent for similar development. 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: 0dd6c1818a4c57cbc9763e17f4b8b5d612e4885ffa0cdeca5b3a9a7c330c7b81

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

1. Considering the lack of information submitted on the existing septic tank and percolation area or the condition and capacity of same and owing to no justification having been provided for the retention of a septic tank at this location, 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 Wastewater Manual. Accordingly to grant the proposed development would be prejudicial to public health, would be contrary to the 2021 EPA Code of Practice Wastewater Manual, would seriously endanger public health, would materially contravene Policy Objectives WW6 and DM Standard 38 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: c65343702b910b2aa0968db36bb1749940ccf6831f6f9d7af3aa2f0e7751c691

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

1. Having regard to the nature of the proposed development and the evidence on site that there is further unauthorised development in the form of significant restoration works that have been carried out to Ardagh House, including that of a new wastewater treatment system, within the confines of this site, it is considered that the proposed development would potentially result in the consolidation of unauthorised development. Therefore, it is considered by the Planning Authority that the proposed development would, if permitted, perpetuate and intensify existing unauthorised development on site.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Having regard to the proposed development which consists of the retention of an annexe building in conjunction with the existing dwelling house and both structures utilising a singular communal on-site wastewater treatment system, the Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of the details submitted with the planning application that the existing wastewater treatment plant can adequately service the proposed development. Furthermore, the Planning Authority has no record of planning approval in relation to the existing wastewater treatment system which was installed in 2019. Therefore, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development would not be prejudicial to public health and would be contrary to DM Standard 38 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 in the absence of contrary evidence. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development on the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. Having regard to lack of information with regards to all works carried out on site including that of the wastewater treatment system the Planning Authority are not satisfied that the likely significant effects of all of the unauthorised development that has occurred within the planning unit on European sites can be screened out. Potential impacts must be considered in combination with other plans and projects. Therefore, if permitted as proposed in the absence of contrary evidence, the planning authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of a European site in view of its conservation objectives of protected European sites for flora and fauna and would potentially materially contravene Policy Objectives NHB1, NHB2 and NHB3 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 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: 9a625b73e3e3b7fbe6824a583ceca114067d9be51832ab3845deb82a7372352e

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

1. The proposed development would be unduly obtrusive by virtue of its visual impact on the landscape and would interfere with the rural 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

2. The Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that a rural housing need has been demonstrated for 2 no. dwelling houses in accordance with Objective KCDP 5-15 Rural Settlement Policy of the County Development Plan 2022-2028 having regard to the location of the application site in an area designated a Rural Area under Urban Influence. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. Having regard to the soil conditions on site, the Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that the effluent arising from the proposed development could be adequately disposed of on site. The proposed development would, therefore, be prejudicial to public health. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

4. The Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that the proposed development would not create a traffic hazard. It is considered that traffic movements generated by the proposed development on a road along where sight distances are restricted, would interfere with the safety and free-flow of traffic on that road. The proposed development would, therefore, endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and an obstruction to road users. 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: 75a45f644625d0a23c8ae6ff24efd9fb961b4eda22fd8b5f9c3ad8e4750c0aa6

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

1. The proposed development is in an area which is at risk of 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 Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that the effluent arising from the proposed development could be adequately disposed of on site. The proposed development would, therefore, be prejudicial to public health. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that a rural housing need has been demonstrated in accordance with Objective KCDP 5-15 Rural Settlement Policy of the County Development Plan 2022-2028 having regard to the location of the application site in an area designated a Rural Area under Urban Influence. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

4. In the absence of an Appropriate Assessment Screening Report, the Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of submissions made in relation to the application, that the proposed development would not have significant effects on Natura 2000 sites in the vicinity. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

5. The site of the proposed development is located in a sensitive coastal environment zoned Visually Sensitive in the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028. It is considered that the proposed development would interfere with the character of the landscape in this area, which is necessary to preserve, in accordance with Objective KCDP 11-78 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposed development would set an undesirable precedent for further similar type developments in the area 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: 7faa053fc1c6e6545c85d69e28b108235d74a2262317ff1c6aa967fc2bf16211

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, which includes a drive through restaurant, has the queuing capacity at times of peak traffic generation to accommodate expected queues and will not affect the existing car-park entrance, pedestrian routes or the public road. It is further considered that the applicant has failed to prove that the inclusion of a car-based drive through restaurant on the edge of this City Centre site would not lead to unnecessary vehicular trip generation and would not attract unnecessary through traffic to this area which, in combination with concerns about queues blocking the car park entrance and spilling out onto the public road, will add to the creation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic hazards and will be contrary to the long-term proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development, which includes provision for extensive vehicle queues and light stands, will not lead to excessive noise, fumes and light spillage such as would have adverse impacts on the residential properties directly adjacent. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the long-term health and welfare of neighbouring residential units and will negatively impact their amenity and devalue their property.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. The design of the development has not been resolved within the statutory decision period and it is considered that the development as currently framed, will lead to a gap in the façade along the Castlecomer road and will fail to adequately comply with the design standards required under Section 13.3 of the City and County Development Plan 2021-2027. The proposal will lead to a substandard treatment of the Castlecomer Road at this important approach to the junction, will lead to a loss of a sense of enclosure and will expose a less than satisfactory side elevation of the corner building. It is considered that the proposed development will be contrary to the proper long-term planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

4. The proposed development has inadequate setback to allow for provision of orbital cycle track to facilitate two phase crossings, protected corner islands or set-back crossings as per Protected T-Junction, TL504 or Protected T-Junction with full signal control, TL505, Cycle Design Manual.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: c7e767c3b4d68a4d34ec177a1cb0d5e4395d0acfa14e44e592d3f609c9b17376

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

1. Within the statutory timeframe for decision, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that noise arising from operational activities on site have been adequately assessed in accordance with best practice noise guidelines and as such adverse impacts on the adjoining residential areas properties cannot be properly quantified. Accordingly, it is considered that the proposal will impact and seriously injure the amenities, or depreciate the value of property in the vicinity of the site. The proposed development is therefore considered an unacceptable risk to public health 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: 4e3d47c5f2a53ebf55229df1d55d2d82f010176a9e25b6c41659a94928672ae3

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

1. It is a requirement of Policy DM RL 2 that justification be provided for locating commercial development in the rural area over a settlement where adequate zoning is in place. It is considered that there are no specific locational requirements of the development that justify or necessitate its location in the rural area. Furthermore, having regard to the specific nature of the development and proximity of the adjacent residential property, it is considered that the ongoing operation of the development would be injurious to residential amenity by reason of noise and disturbance. It is therefore considered that the development is contrary to Policy DM RL 2 (11) and (12) of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027, that it is not considered an appropriate rural commercial enterprise in this location, 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: ac6b25c62068b3363f5833a3afcf0dc550acf85cebb9d1a1cd0ef85c3a07897c

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

1. Having regard to the unavailability of the required 3 metre x 180 metre sight lines to the nearside edge of the road at the location of the site entrance onto the R428 to comply with the Laois County Council Roads & Parking Standards 2007, the proposed access would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and the obstruction of road users and, would therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The proposed development is proposed onto the Strategic Regional Route (R428) where the maximum speed limits apply. Policy TRANS 22 of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027 seeks to “Prohibit unnecessary access onto strategic regional routes in areas where speed limits in excess of 50kmph applies”. The proposed development materially contravenes this policy of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027. The proposal, if granted, would set an undesirable precedent for similar development 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: cdf5d17266b72d8ff6eb382f3eeb944deb2be93e80671de23417184d3e69b39f

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

1. The development to be retained, notwithstanding the revisions proposed during the course of the application, does not meet minimum standards for access visibility as per Section 7.6, Volume 2 of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028. Therefore, the proposed development would therefore endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users or otherwise and is contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: dc353e848ee47f27c79b0f81f112d65bef51d730ecb1d605dc33325ff733bc9c

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

1. Having regard to the information submitted, including the Further Information response, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the structure proposed to be served by the wastewater treatment system constitutes an existing lawful dwelling capable of refurbishment. In this regard, the applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate the lawful residential use and planning status of the structure. Consequently, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed wastewater treatment system is intended to serve an existing dwelling or that the proposed development has been adequately justified. Accordingly, the proposed development 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: 3c711bd5fb720ed6dfffe0a54217b267e95a6a96225e43a7ee5bc12712a82dd1

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

1. The applicant has failed to submit sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed agricultural development complies with the requirements of DM OBJ 62 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027. In particular, the applicant has failed to submit adequate details regarding the agricultural need for the proposed structure, farming activities on the holding, livestock numbers, compliance with Good Agricultural Practice Regulations, and the collection and storage of agricultural effluent and yard runoff. In the absence of this information, the Planning Authority is unable to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the proposal. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of DM OBJ 62 the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, would establish an undesirable future precedent, would harm the residential amenities of the surrounding area, depreciate value of property in the vicinity of the subject site, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The applicant has failed to submit sufficient information in respect of the existing/proposed site entrance serving the development, including detailed drawings, visibility splays and sightline information, to demonstrate that safe access can be provided from the adjoining public road in accordance with the requirements of TII Publication DN-GEO-03060. In the absence of such information, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development can be accessed safely or that it would not give rise to a traffic hazard or endanger public safety. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. The applicant has failed to submit adequate details in relation to the collection, treatment and disposal of surface water runoff arising from the proposed development. In the absence of this information, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development can be adequately serviced or that it would not adversely affect the receiving environment or public health. The proposed development is therefore contrary to INF POL 16 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, which seeks to ensure that all planning applications for new development have regard to the surface water management policies set out in the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS). The proposed development would, therefore, result in an unacceptable risk to public health and the environment 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: 654f307089222faae2bad5f9d506a97d8cf793efddcf1460e47d96dd0174db28

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

Source note: Grounds 2 and 3 of the council’s 3 grounds are reproduced in full. Ground 1 is withheld because it contains personal circumstances. Original numbering is retained.

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 (as varied). The proposed development, if permitted, would add to the pattern of linear housing along this section of public road and exacerbate the existing ribbon of development to the extent that it would represent an excessive concentration and density of residential development and in doing so create additional development opportunities that would further exacerbate the situation. Bearing in mind the extent of development already permitted in this area, it is considered that the proposed development, if permitted, would be contrary to the aforementioned Ministerial Guidelines and contravene the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 RD POL 3, which seek to maintain the identity of surrounding towns, villages and rural settlements. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. It is a policy (RD POL 9) of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, “To require all applications for rural houses to comply with the ‘Meath Rural House Design Guide”. The proposed development by reason of its size, sitting and massing is considered would be out of keeping and fails to integrate with the character of the immediate surrounding rural area and would form a visually obtrusive feature, which would not respect and integrate with the surrounding landscape. Accordingly, to permit the proposed development would materially contravene the aforementioned policy provisions of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and thereby contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: f17baba633106323e75563ebf598ef7b183b39415874d72963f090cdd4ccf8c7

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

1. The proposed storage facility/shed, by reason of its scale, design and commercial appearance, would constitute an inappropriate and incompatible form of development within lands zoned A1 "Existing Residential", the primary objective of which is to protect and enhance the amenity of established residential communities. The proposed development would adversely affect the residential amenities of adjoining properties and the wider area by reason of increased traffic generation, noise, disturbance, and associated commercial activity. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the zoning objectives of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The proposed development, which includes the subdivision of the residential curtilage and the construction of a storage facility/shed, by reason of its excessive scale, massing and footprint relative to the existing dwelling, would not be considered subordinate or ancillary to the principal dwelling house and would be visually dominant within the site. Furthermore, the proposed timber boundary fence, located forward of the front building line, by reason of its height, design and prominent location, would be visually intrusive, would fail to integrate with the character of the area and would not constitute an acceptable form of boundary treatment. The proposed subdivision of the site, together with the scale of the structure and the proposed boundary treatment, would be out of keeping with the established pattern of development in the area and would seriously injure the visual amenities and residential character of the area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. It is a policy (RD POL 48) of the Meath County Development Plan 2021 – 2027, “To ensure all septic tank/proprietary treatment plants and polishing filter/percolation areas satisfy the criteria set out in the Environmental Protection Agency ‘Code of Practice Domestic Waste Water Treatment Systems (Population Equivalent ≤10)’ (2021) (or any other updated code of practice guidelines) in order to safeguard individual and group water schemes”. Having regard to the location of the proposed structure which is sited within 7m of the existing wastewater treatment system, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development meets the minimum standards as set out in the ‘2021 Environmental Protection Agency Code of Practice’. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the subject site can cater for the safe and effective treatment and disposal of effluent in accordance with the necessary standards and therefore would be prejudicial to public health.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

4. The independent vehicular entrance serving the rear portion of the site and this shed/storage facility, would facilitate the creation of a separate access to a subdivided area of a residential curtilage and would result in a form of development that is not ancillary to the established residential use of the site. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed access can provide adequate sightlines and safe access and egress for vehicles. By reason of its location and the intensification of vehicular movements associated with the proposed development, the entrance would give rise to a traffic hazard and endanger public safety for road users, pedestrians and cyclists. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the interests of traffic safety and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3, 4

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 8a6b369dc99a586ec0fc0ca3e68641bc71c899ddcd21ae96d1d30b44715f8bf8

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

1. Having regard to the site-specific Flood Risk Assessment submitted which confirms the site is located on un-zoned lands in Flood Zone A, it is considered that the proposed extension and the associated development of an additional residential unit, being a ‘highly vulnerable use’ as set out in the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009), would be contrary to the said Guidelines. As the proposed development is in an area at risk of flooding and the potential risks of flooding cannot be ruled out, the proposed development would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

2. Having regard to the fact that a primary risk factor identified in the submitted Natura Impact Statement in relation to the River Suck Callows SPA is a ‘deterioration in the quality due to pollution’, when taken in conjunction with the outcome of the site-specific Flood Risk Assessment submitted (which concludes the site is in Flood Zone A), it cannot be concluded that all potential environmental impacts have been or can be sufficiently and appropriately mitigated against, including but not limited to impacts on protected species and designated sites. On the basis of information provided and as reflected in the conclusion reached in the Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment undertaken by Roscommon County Council as the Competent Authority, it cannot be concluded that this development would not unduly impact upon the receiving natural environment and its associated flora and fauna, and in particular that the proposed development, individually or in combination with other plans or projects would not adversely affect the integrity of a Natura 2000 site (River Suck Callows SPA) having regard to the conservation objectives of the site.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

3. The proposed development, in the site-specific context in which it is proposed, fails to make sufficient provision for on-site car parking and associated vehicular circulation. The proposed development has the potential to generate on-street parking, at the junction of the private lane with the N63 national secondary route and the R362 regional route and would also intensify vehicular turning movements at this busy junction. The proposed development therefore has the potential to endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users and would accordingly be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1, 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 44055ff3bd9118d9f246cd4d8b476c86217e06913267fa01ccb284263f0ccc5c