Latest refusal decisions.

Having regard to the extent of existing and permitted dwellings in the immediate vicinity of the application site, the proposal would contribute to an excessive density of development of a suburban scale in a rural area. To permit the proposed development would result in further expansion and consolidation of a suburban pattern of development, and would set an undesirable precedent for further development along this road frontage which would further erode the rural character of the area, and materially contravene Policies RH- P-9 of the County Development Plan 2024 -2030 and the objectives of National Planning Policy and would thereby be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. Policy TOU-P-5 supports the development of ‘a small retailing element or café/restaurant which is ancillary to, and functionally dependent on, the core tourism product.’ Having regard to the propos ed location of the coffee kiosk and associated infrastructure, the Planning Authority considers that the physical and visual separation of the existing farm business and proposed ancillary development is such that the proposal will result in a standalone form of development that will primarily serve the public and that is not ‘functionally dependant’ on the core tourism business. Therefore to permit the development as proposed would create an undesirable policy precedent for similar one- off developments that would be contrary to the provisions of Policy TOU-P-5 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. Policy TOU-P-8 requires that all tourism based development complies with inter alia, the following criteria – ‘The development will not cause a traffic hazard, and the existing road network can safely handle any extra vehicular traffic generated by the proposed development.’ In the absence of any details with regard to the proposed entrance into the site including visibility splays and surface water drainage measures, and having regard to the additional traffic manoeuvres that will result if the development is permitted in proximity to the existing farm entrance, and the frequency of such movements, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development constitutes a traffic hazard. Therefore to permit the development would be contrary to the provisions of Policy TOU- P-8 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. Policy T-P-3 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024- 2030 sets out that ‘ it shall be a policy of the Planning Authority to require that…a. Development proposals protect potential linkages (such as …greenways) where the Authority considers that a strategic opportunity exists to provide linkages to, or between, adjoining areas.’ The Bundoran – Ballyshannon greenway is complete at the subject site. The proposal would entail a new vehicular entrance across the completed greenway track that is considered to be contrary to the provisions of Policy T -P-3 and therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Applicant is advised that as per previous discussions, positive consideration may be given to location of the coffee van ADJACENT to the existing farm and tourism facilities making use of an existing entrance and clearly associated with the farm business.

It is a policy of the Buncrana Town Plan, 2024-2030 (Policy TC-G-P-4 refers) to ‘Consider proposals for food take- away units, bookmakers, amusement arcades, and casinos within the ‘Urban Core’ zoning provided that they: (a) Are not located within or abutting premises consisting of residential accommodation, schools or religious institutions. (b) Do not contribute to the over concentration of such uses in a given area which would result in excessive noise, litter and anti-social hours of operation; and (c) Do not detract from the streetscape and vitality and viability of the area.’ On the basis of the information submitted, which (i) fails to clarify the permitted use/s of the upper second and third floor areas above ground floor units in the overall building previously indicated as residential in historical applications and (ii) otherwise seeks permanent excessive late opening hours on the basis of an heretofore unapproved late- night licence from a third party premises as an acceptable rational for same, the Planning Authority are not satisfied that the application has sufficiently demonstrated compliance with the above policy or otherwise presented a valid planning rationale for same. Accordingly, to permit the development on as proposed would materially contravene the aforementioned policy, would set an undesirable precedent for future forms of similar development and would therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. The proposed development relates to an isolated parcel at the prominent northern end of the former Unifi lands and is not supported by an overall masterplan or coordinated framework demonstrating how its layout, access, active- travel infrastructure, servic ing and drainage would integrate with the future development of the wider landholding. The proposal would constitute piecemeal development, would prejudice the comprehensive and orderly regeneration of Opportunity Site 3 and would fail to provide the coordinated, high-quality layout required by Policy ED -P-9(k). It would therefore be contrary to the Opportunity Site Zoning Objective, Policies LK -OPP-3 and ED -P-9(k), and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The proposed warehouse, by reason of its basic utilitarian design, siting, orientation and inadequate architectural, landscaping and boundary treatment, fails to provide an appropriate design response to this prominent gateway location or establish a coher ent frontage to the adjoining roads. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy ED - P-9(k) and (l) of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024– 2030 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. The proposed standalone vehicular access onto the L- 1144 Lisnenan Road would be located excessively close to the existing roundabout and has not been designed as part of an integrated access strategy for the wider landholding. In the absence of a Transport Assessment, Road Safety Audit and coordinated proposals for the protected signalised junction and adjoining active- travel infrastructure, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed access would operate safely or would not prejudice the comprehensive development of the wider lands. The proposal would therefore endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and would constitute disorderly and piecemeal development.
4. The application has not been accompanied by the site- specific Flood Risk Assessment required under Policy LK -OPP-3. In the absence of this assessment and a coordinated surface-water drainage and attenuation strategy, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development would avoid or satisfactorily address flood risk, would not increase flood risk elsewhere or would not prejudice the flood- management requirements of the wider Opportunity Site. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policy LK-OPP-3 and Policies F-P-1 and F-P-2 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024–2030.

Refusal reason evidence not yet indexed.

Refusal reason evidence not yet indexed.

1. The subject site is located in an area that is upland in nature and isolated from existing clusters of development. It is a policy of the Planning Authority (Policy RH -P-9, County Development Plan 2024-2030) that proposals for individual dwellings shall be subject to the application of Best Practice in relation to the siting, location and design of rural housing - which in turn requires that new buildings in the countryside respect the rural context and demonstrate an informed use of traditional reference. The dwelling proposed is 2 storey and o f a rectangular form with suburban design features that is inconsistent with the general character of the scenic area. It is located on an elevated site that is visually dominant in the local landscape. Accordingly, to permit the development as submitted would create an undesirable policy precedent for similar one-off developments that have the potential to be severely detrimental to preservation of scenic amenities in the rural area and would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024 -2030 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. It is a policy of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 ‘To preserve the views and prospects of special amenity value and interest as identified on Map 11.1’ (Policy L- P-7 refers). The subject site falls within the vista from the viewing point from the south west and having regard to the elevated nature of the site and suburban design and scale of the proposed dwelling, it is considered that to permit the development as submitted would be visually detrimental to the protection of the scenic view and would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024- 2030 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. The subject site is accessed by an agricultural laneway that is of narrow width and steep gradient. The laneway that accesses the subject site is extremely restricted in width and runs north–south along a steeply sloping hillside. The lane crosses the Murl in River by means of a bridge. No details have been submitted with regard to the structural integrity of the bridge or if Section 50 consent has been received from the Office of Public Works. It is considered that the existing lane and bridge, in the absence of any structural details or proposals for improvements to same, lack s the necessary width and capacity to accommodate construction machinery and to provide for adequate passing space for existing and future vehicles. To permit the development as submitted would contravene Policy RH-P-9 (b) (iii) that requires that ‘ the site access/egress being configured in a manner that does not constitute a hazard to road users or significantly scar the landscape’, create an undesirable precedent for similar developments in the area and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.