Refusal decisions · 10 August–16 August 2026

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

1. Having regard to mottling noted within 500mm below ground level in the trial hole on site during site inspection, and documentation and proposals submitted with the application, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that wastewater and surface water can be adequately catered for on site without risk to the environment and public health; the development as proposed 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: 20a0749069042f33a9dc271c1d47c30673d06cf3e262b1a3a828a2d4c2f3ee31

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

1. The proposed development is partly located in an area where the stated zoning in the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027, is Open Space / Amenity, the objective of which is to preserve, provide for and improve active and passive recreational public and private open space. The purpose of this zone is that ‘the areas included in this zoning objective cover both private and public open space and are dispersed throughout urban centres of every size. The Council will not normally permit development that would result in a loss of open space’. The proposed development which would be partly located within this Open Space/Amenity zoning, would be materially contrary to this zoning objective. Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The proposed development is located in an area which is at risk of flooding (Flood Zone A and Flood Zone B), as indicated in the Laois County Council Strategic Flood Risk Assessment in the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027 and the Office of Public Works Catchment Flood Risk Assessment and Management mapping. The proposed development, which constitutes a highly vulnerable type of development in relation to flood risk, would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines [DoEHLG, 2009) and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 306ca8c075576bb4e54bbe90bf3c1f53cdb01fe3cfb54663fcdb963be880fdac

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

1. The design for the attic conversion/extension as presented is incongruous with the existing roof profile of the house in question and the adjoining dwelling. The extension would be harmful to the visual and residential amenity of the site and surrounding area due to its excessive size, bulk and poor design. The extension would therefore be contrary to Objective HO O3 Protection of Existing Residential Amenity and section 11.4.4.1.3 Alterations at Roof/Attic Level of the Limerick Development Plan 2022-2028 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: af3dfb3fa0d9c3ab2ede23a31cbbada927652f3b8765e6ccdd95323d3549da41

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

1. Taking account of the high/extreme groundwater vulnerability in the area, that the site is underlain by a regionally important aquifer and the number of existing houses in the area, additional loading from an onsite wastewater treatment system serving the proposed dwelling to the groundwater would increase the risk of groundwater contamination resulting in an unacceptable risk to public health, in particular for existing dwellings in the area currently served by individual bore wells. In addition, the River Greanagh 010 Water Body has been deemed to be under significant pressure from domestic wastewater treatment systems in the 2nd cycle in the Water Framework Directive. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to Objective EH O15 of the Limerick Development Plan 2022-2028, to protect ground and surface water resources and to take into account the requirement of the Water Framework Directive when dealing with planning and land use issues, as well as Objective EH O16, to ensure that septic tanks/proprietary treatment systems, or other waste water treatment and storage systems which are required as part of a development, comply with the standards set out under EPA 2021 etc. and that they are constructed only where site conditions are appropriate. Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The proposed development would materially contravene the Section 47 Agreement attached to Planning Register Reference Number 10/299 sterilising the subject site and remainder of the landholding associated with 10/299 from further residential development.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. The site of the proposed development is located within the Area of Strong Urban Influence as defined in the Limerick Development Plan 2022-2028. Based on the documentary evidence submitted with the application, it is considered that the applicant does not come within the scope of the housing need criteria as set out in Objective HO O20 (Rural Areas under Strong Urban Influence) of the Development Plan, and as such, the proposed development would materially contravene the objectives of the Limerick Development Plan 2022-2028 in relation to rural settlement, militate against the preservation of the rural environment and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

4. Having regard to the proximity of the development site to Curraghchase Woods Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 000174), c.100m distance, and the qualifying interests of the SAC, namely the Lesser Horseshoe Bat, the potential arises for direct and indirect effects during the construction phase of the proposed development. In this regard, in the absence of a bat survey, carried out by a suitably qualified ecologist with particular experience of the Lesser Horseshoe Bat, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development individually or in combination with other plans or projects, would not result in adverse effects on the integrity of the Curraghchase Woods Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 000174) in view of the conservation objectives and qualifying interests of same.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3, 4

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: e4f6991f1d953225b8bb97d02d400f525ce96b70e1473e356f53b9c04b97a0a3

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

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of Development Management Standard DMS16.80 of the Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027 and the ‘Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines for Planning Authorities’. The planning application lacks sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed development would not have a serious impact on the residential amenity of the existing dwellings and any future residents of the proposed dwelling by reason of its siting and design. The development would therefore set an undesirable precedent within the area and is considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development, consisting of the conversion of an existing storage shed to a one-bedroom apartment, would introduce an independent residential unit in a constrained backland location to the rear of existing development. Having regard to the limited size, form and layout of the existing structure, the absence of any clearly defined private amenity space and the failure to demonstrate an acceptable standard of residential accommodation for future occupants, the Planning Authority considers that the proposal would result in a substandard residential environment. Furthermore, the proposal has failed to demonstrate compliance with DMS16.78 of the Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027, which requires backland development to protect residential amenity and respect the established pattern of development. The proposed development would therefore constitute unsatisfactory backland development, would represent overdevelopment of the site and 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: b85ab2abbb235f8feed618ae0d6037da8bc4c0b345cc7ef86ee1f7f3d96a13a5

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

1. The development at this location would contravene “Objective RHO 4” of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 which must ensure that development “Does not impinge in any significant way on the character, integrity and distinctiveness of the area, Cannot be considered at an alternative location, Meets high standards in siting and design, Satisfies all other criterial with regard to, inter alia, servicing, public safety, and environmental considerations Demonstrates enhancement to local landscape character and ecological connectivity” The proposed development would therefore set an undesirable precedent for similar type developments in scenic coastal areas , would interfere with the character of the landscape at this location, which it is necessary to preserve, and would, both by itself, and the precedent it would set, be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The applicants have failed to satisfy Mayo County Council that the proposed development meets the criteria outlined in Objective RHO 4 of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028, most especially with regard to the possibility of locating the development at a less visually sensitive location. The proposed development would therefore interfere with the character of the landscape at this location, which it is necessary to preserve, and be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 8b1893ef82180cc3f4ddf4a858613e5b7607ca06de63ed64e609de5b0272e099

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

1. It is the objective of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 “ To protect and conserve the architectural heritage of the County and seek to prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of Protected Structures”. (HER POL 14). By virtue of the prominent location and design of the proposed development, the Planning Authority considers that if permitted, the development would adversely impact upon the setting and character of the protected structure and neighbouring protected structures. Further, the Planning Authority considers that the development would not have the capacity to assimilate into its surroundings and would injure the amenities of the surrounding area. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would contravene the aforementioned objective of the County Development Plan, be contrary to the aforementioned Ministerial Guidelines, establish an undesirable future precedent and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The proposed digital signage is incompatible with the principles of the Kells Conservation Area and is deemed inappropriate within the context of Meath County Council's Shopfront Design Guide. The signage would not be in accordance with the particulars of DM OBJ 103, given that the proposed signage would “advertise general products or services”, would be “animated and moving” and would also be a “changeable message sign”.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 448e0335c4c38b191ef46c7e598d768269c3dfcd6ccb26bb46bb593cbd1cccb1

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

Source note: Ground 1 is withheld because it contains private personal circumstances. Grounds 2 and 3 are reproduced in full from the final refusal order dated 11 August 2026. This is an incomplete public ground set.

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. 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 43) of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, “To ensure that the required standards for sight distances and stopping sight distances are in compliance with current road geometry standards as outlined in the NRA document Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) specifically Section TD 41-42/09 when assessing individual planning applications for individual houses in the countryside”. Having regard to the failure of the particulars submitted with the application to demonstrate visibility splays in accordance with the DMRB requirements and Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, the Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of the information submitted that safe visibility splays can be provided in each direction to the required standards. Accordingly, to permit the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard, contrary to 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: 58ed376db59015d03ec5d99e46306977a105ac4dd59c4970cbec036cb3aec188

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

1. Section 42(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2023 states, “On application to it in that behalf, but subject to subsection (8),] a planning authority shall, as regards a particular permission, extend the appropriate period by such additional period not exceeding 5 years as the authority considers requisite to enable the development to which the permission relates to be completed provided that each of the following requirements is complied with: (a) (i) the authority is satisfied that— (I) the development to which the permission relates was commenced before the expiration of the appropriate period sought to be extended, (II) F391[...] (III) substantial works were carried out pursuant to the permission during that period, and (IV) the development will be completed within a reasonable time The development to which the permission relates has not commenced nor have substantial works been carried out on site. Therefore, the application to extend the appropriate period is not considered to be in accordance with Section 42 (1) of the Planning & Development Act 2000 -2023.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 77c2c5c24052c1a79713825b3cf55f04c38196f2348c813bad2e0342d2b3918f

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

1. Policy RUR DEV SP 2 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 seeks to ensure that individual house developments in rural areas satisfy the housing requirements of persons who are an intrinsic part of the rural community in which they are proposed, subject to compliance with normal planning criteria. The applicant applied for permission based on Section 9.4 Persons who are an Intrinsic Part of the Rural Community under the following definition, “Persons who have spent substantial periods of their lives, living in rural areas as members of the established rural community for a period in excess of five years and who do not possess a dwelling or who have not possessed a dwelling in the past in which they have resided or who possess a dwelling in which they do not currently reside”. It is considered the applicant has failed to provide adequate and verifiable information such as consistent proof of address for at least five years to establish a rural housing need and hence the Planning Authority is not satisfied that that a rural housing need in accordance with the above provisions of the plan has been established. The proposed development would be contrary to the policy of the Ministerial Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines for Planning Authorities and the Meath County Development Plan 2021 – 2027 and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would establish a very undesirable future precedent.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. It is the policy (RD POL 9) of the Meath County Development 2021 – 2027, “To require all applications for rural houses to comply with the ‘Meath Rural House Design Guide’” which seeks to avoid elevated and exposed sites as detailed in section 2.3 of said document. Having regard to the elevated and exposed nature of the application site with it is considered that the proposed development in particular the two storey nature would result in a strident and obtrusive physical development prominent in the landscape when viewed from the public road. In addition, it would set an undesirable precedent of a disorderly form of physical development currently free of development into the host environment in a manner seriously injurious to visual amenity of the rural landscape. Accordingly, to permit the proposed development would be contrary to the aforementioned policy provisions of the Meath County Development Plan 2021 – 2027 and therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 87e39b586d8d0f46cea7fb99ee1b08b8c2ee732d8e6665c8d8347c12fdc6061b

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

1. 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. It is a policy (RD POL 3) of the Meath County Development Plan 2021 - 2027, “To protect areas falling within the environs of urban centres in this Area Type from urban generated and unsightly ribbon development and to maintain the identity of these urban areas”. Having regard to (i) the siting of the proposed dwelling to the east and west of an existing linear pattern of development along local road L-1002-4, and (ii) to the density, pattern and build-up of continuous road frontage development at this rural location, it is considered that to permit the proposed development would by itself and by the ‘infill’ sites it would create, result in an undesirable extension and coalescence of a disorderly and regimental line of ribbon development, which would be visually prejudicial to the amenities of the area and therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The proposed development would directly access and egress onto a Class 1 Protected Strategic County Road ref: CR401. It is a policy (RD POL 39) of the Meath County Development Plan 2021 - 2027, “To identify and protect those non-national roads of regional or local importance from unnecessary and excessive individual access/egress points, which would prejudice the carrying capacity and, ultimately, the function of the road” and (RD POL 40), “To restrict new accesses for one-off dwellings where the 80km per hour speed limit currently applies in order to safeguard the specific functions and to avoid the premature obsolescence of identified regional and important county link roads (see Map No. 9.2) through the creation of excessive levels of individual entrances, and to secure the investment in non-national roads”. Notwithstanding the exceptions to the above policies as outlined in section 9.15.3 of the plan, it is considered that the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard because of interfering with the safety and free flow of traffic on the adjoining public road and would ultimately undermine the function of the road by the precedent it would set. Accordingly, to permit the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard, would be contrary to 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: 499a1d403d3d5f9404b4dd517edb9f525f7f795f24bceab034edb09f033dc325

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

1. The subject site is located in open countryside that is identified as ‘Rural Area Under Strong Urban Influence’ in the Offaly County Development Plan 2021-2027. In such areas it is development plan policy that certain categories of applicant, which are defined in policy SSP-27 of the County Development Plan, will be given a positive presumption for the development of a permanent rural home. The Council considers that the applicants do not comply with policy SSP-27 as the applicant do not meet the economic or social requirements for local need and accordingly the proposed development would materially contravene the Offaly County Development Plan 2021-2027 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: 79f0add64fb9012407c4980a9d76a86976096f676d039253ab81385c15356741

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

1. It is the policy of the Planning Authority as set out in the current Sligo County Development Plan 2024 - 2030 to preserve, protect and enhance the architectural heritage of County Sligo for future generations by seeking to prevent the demolition or inappropriate alteration of protected structures and their settings. ( P-ARH-1), to Ensure that any development, modifications, alterations, or extensions affecting a protected structure, an adjoining structure or a structure within an ACA is sited and designed appropriately and is not detrimental to the character of the structure, to its setting or the general character of the ACA. (P-ARH-2) and conserve and enhance the special character of the Architectural Conservation Areas. The special character of an area includes its traditional building stock and material finishes, spaces, streetscapes, shop fronts, landscape and setting (P-ACA-1). It is considered that the proposed retention of the exposed stone front façade is a non- sympathetic alteration and would have a detrimental impact on the character of the Architectural Conservation Area and setting of neighbouring protected structures. The development would therefore not be in accordance with the principles of architectural heritage as set out in policy P-ARH-1, P-ARH-2, Section 25.3, P-ACA-1 and P-ACA-2 of the County Development Plan 2024 -2030 and accordingly would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 4

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 62c1141b9b28f7c443c9c6f2e818b294d52f7d33cc820491bf2b7e32241695cd

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

1. Having regard to the location of the site outside the Development Limit of Sligo Town, its separation from the established built-up area by intervening lands, and the fact that the residential element of the proposed development is located on lands designated as Strategic Land Reserve, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed residential component of the development would represent the orderly and sequential expansion of Sligo Town or accord with the Compact Growth principles as set-out in the Sligo County Development Plan (CDP) 2024-2030 (as varied). Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the release and development of these Strategic Land Reserve lands is justified having regard to the objective of ensuring Compact Growth, and given that the site’s infrastructural deficit in terms of transport infrastructure. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to policy P-SLR-2 of the CDP, and is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and contrary to the Compact Growth objectives and Strategic Land Reserve provisions of the CDP.

   Official final decision · PDF page 5

2. Policy P-SWD-1 of the Sligo County Development Plan (CDP) 2024-2030 (as varied) requires all new development to provide a separate foul and surface water drainage system and to incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems (SuDs) where feasible. Policy P-SWD-2 of the CDP requires that planning applications are accompanied by a comprehensive SuDs assessment. It is considered that the information submitted in support of the application has failed to demonstrate that the proposed method of surface water disposal for the development would be suitable for site. As such, surface water run-off from the development may exacerbate flooding or have a detrimental effect on water quality. The proposed development would materially contravene Policy P-SWD-1 and P-SWD-2 of the Sligo County Development Plan (CDP) 2024-2030 (as varied) and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 5

3. Policy P-BD-2 of the Sligo County Development Plan (CDP) 2024-2030 (as varied) seeks the protection of habitats of protected species. Policy P-BD-3 of the CDP requires that the ecological impacts of all development proposals on habitats of species are appropriately assessed by suitably qualified professionals in accordance with best practice and follows the precautionary principle where uncertainty exists. Due to the absence of a bat dusk emergence survey, the applicant has failed to confirm that the existing agricultural buildings are not used as a roost for bats, and therefore is not the habitat of a protected species. As such the proposed development, may lead to the destruction of the habitat of a protected species and is thus contrary to policies P-BD-2 and P-BD-3 of the CDP and is inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 6

4. Policy P-BD-2 of the Sligo County Development Plan (CDP) 2024-2030 (as varied) seeks the protection of habitats of protected species. As outlined within the Ecoloigcal Impact Assessment included with the application the proposal will result in the disturbance or loss of a badger sett(s) which is the habitat of a protected species. The proposal fails to provide details relating to the adequate mitigation for the loss of this habitat. As such, the applicant has failed to submit adequate information in relation to a habitat for badgers, and to demonstrate that the proposed development, will not lead to the loss of the habitat of a protected species and is thus contrary to policy P-BD-2 of the CDP and is inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 6

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 7eee8f7a209f421a1ce41f58450b3497fb951394eb6fb04c6fbeafbfcbbc5dd7

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

1. The subject proposal, by reason of overall layout and facilities proposed (including, inter alia, quantum of triple occupancy rooms, number of sanitary facilities, access to sanitary facilities from bedroom areas, a single kitchen/dining area to serve the entire development) would not provide for adequate levels of privacy or general amenity for future occupants. In addition, while the proposal as indicated would provide for “managed short-stay hostel-style accommodation”, the duration of stay of any persons accommodated within same could not be practically limited or enforced by way of a condition on a grant of permission, even if temporary in nature. Having regard to same, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development would provide an acceptable standard of accommodation as proposed and, if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for similar development which would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and thus cannot be favourably considered by the Planning Authority.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1, 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: bf65c6af7a5e82d2fcff0e58a326e05d38cc498770e901b4c3486d2076ae4fc9

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

1. This application seeks permission to widen the existing entrance and to retain two feed silos, extension to existing sheds, the change of use to retail of the lands, office and warehouses and associated storage, use of the yard for open storage of materials for sale, erection of signage and a front boundary wall located on unzoned and unserviced lands in a rural area in Colman circa 3.5km from Fethard, Co. Tipperary. In accordance with the Retail Planning Guidelines 2012, it is a policy of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 (Policy 7-4) to support new small-scale retail development outside of settlement boundaries in exceptional circumstances only, where it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that it is ancillary to a tourism or recreational use, is ancillary to an on-farm diversification business, or where it is retailing a product produced on site and directly to the public. Having regard to the nature of the retail activity undertaken on site i.e. bulky goods/co-op, the Planning Authority considers that the change of use of the lands and structures would, if permitted, conflict with a stated policy of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 (Policy 7-4), conflict with the Retail Planning Guidelines 2012 and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Section 6.1 (Road Design and Visibility at a Direct Access) of the Tipperary County Development Plan 2022 sets out the sightline requirements for new development. Owing to the failure of the applicant to demonstrate that the existing or modified entrance satisfies the required standards the Planning Authority is not satisfied that a safe means of access to and egress from the site can be provided. The proposal would therefore endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users and is considered to be contrary to a stated objective of the Development Plan and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The feed silo, extension to the shed, signage and use of the yard for open storage for which retention permission is sought are in use for an unauthorised retail use. The retention of the subject structures would facilitate an unauthorised use and would if permitted be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and set an undesirable precedent for other such similar development.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 056b51698c3cbcfae45ba7a3126fa79c342781237b96d2b15f44fd87e9ce4bda

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

1. This application is to extend the duration of Plan Reg No 19/601282. This permission expired on the 07/01/2026 (as per I Plan). In accordance with Section 251 (Calculation of appropriate period and other time limits over holidays) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, “the period between the 24th day of December and the first day of January, both days inclusive, shall be disregarded”. Allowing for these additional 45 days the expiry date of Planning Reference 19/601282 is the 21st of February 2026. As per Section 42(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, a planning authority shall extend the appropriate period of a permission provided that (a) (i) the authority is satisfied that— (I) the development to which the permission relates was commenced before the expiration of the appropriate period sought to be extended, (III) substantial works were carried out pursuant to the permission during that period, and (IV) the development will be completed within a reasonable time (b) the application is in accordance with such regulations under this Act as apply to it, (c) any requirements of, or made under those regulations are complied with as regards the application, and (d) the application is duly made prior to the end of the appropriate period. Having regard to the documentation submitted and having undertaken a site inspection, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the permission commenced before the expiration of the appropriate period sought to be extended nor is the Planning Authority satisfied that application was made prior to the end of the appropriate period. Permission to extend the duration of Plan reg No 19/601282 shall be refused. The proposal therefore conflicts with the requirements of Section 41(a) and (d) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1, 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ffd0bb0e15364edba346afb609497b256eb8daa4969ec3aac9e76401fbbe5054

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

1. It is the policy of the planning authority to encourage development on serviced lands in towns and villages and to restrict development in the rural areas to cases of genuine local housing need. The proposed development is located in an area identified as an 'Area Under Strong Urban Influence' in the Waterford City & County Development Plan 2022-2028. The Planning Authority is not satisfied on the basis of the information submitted with the application that the proposal constitutes a Genuine Housing Need in accordance with Section 7.11.2 of the Waterford City & County Development Plan 2022-2028. It is considered that, in the absence of a substantiated local housing need for a house at this exact rural location, the proposed development would conflict with the policy of the planning authority, would seriously injure the amenities of the area and 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: 074870c27d567575d9d34fca55ca9c06bbb6b774bab472f53816632fc8f88554

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

1. Based on the details submitted with the application, it is considered that the proposed development would have a negative impact on traffic movements in the vicinity of the site and including at the R675 Waterford Tramore Road and the Waterford Road Roundabout. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed access layout at the site would represent a danger to pedestrian movements. It is therefore considered that the proposed development would give rise to a traffic hazard, would be prejudicial to road safety and negatively impact upon traffic and pedestrian movements in the area, would set an undesirable precedent for similar proposals in the area and as such would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 2dcf451007001340179944e6db4ffd83f0f3ab4797ef6388962d58054550aa5c

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

1. Having regard to the extremely elevated and visually exposed nature of the site, the proposed siting, scale, form and design of the dwelling would fail to integrate with the receiving rural landscape and would present as a prominent and intrusive feature on the skyline, resulting in an unacceptable adverse impact on the visual amenities and rural character of the area. The proposal fails to utilise the natural topography or landscape features to assimilate the development into its surroundings and would be readily visible in long-distance views. If permitted, the development would set an undesirable precedent for similar visually prominent development in elevated rural locations. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy Objective CPO 16.32 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021–2027 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: 45ba9286ea8ec7ba62a879d1a1eb8d889f18a2c7c08cefc28d6b23dfe617c790

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

1. The proposed development to be retained, by reason of its proximity to the adjoining watercourse would give rise to an unacceptable risk of adverse impacts to a watercourse, including sedimentation, potential pollution and deterioration in water quality. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Objective FRM18 and Objective WQ15 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028, Volume One and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development to be retained would result in the intensification of an existing access where limited sightlines are available. Having regard to the increased frequency of vehicular movements associated with the proposed development to be retained and the restricted visibility at this location, the development would give rise to a traffic hazard and endanger public safety. The development proposed to be retained would therefore be contrary to Objective TS78 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028, Volume One and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The applicant has failed to submit an adequate Flood Risk Assessment to demonstrate that the proposed development to be retained would not be at risk of flooding, would not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere and would not adversely affect the flow of the adjoining watercourse. In the absence of such information, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal would not give rise to unacceptable risks to public safety. The proposal in its current form is therefore contrary to Objective FRM07 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028, Volume One and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: d4644856e80aaec66589b50f92c076a66130bdcd73b3bb2a47084b0d40311504

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

1. Section 3.2 of Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 refers to garages and stores which should be for domestic use only and for uses that should remain ancillary to the main use of the dwelling house. Garages/stores are limited to a maximum floor area of 80 sqm and a maximum height of 5m. The proposed garage has a ridge height of 6.6m in excess of the maximum ridge height and is considered to be in excess of normal domestic requirements. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Section 3.2 of Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 refers 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: 8cb52ec545b6f59cfe0b5cf7baf9221d0bf1abee53a3a84f68e58bfaa5e480a8

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

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

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 60b1b94734bc169f520af643ada7d3bbe2ef3f9f7864f1abce5e989293d3ab05

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

1. The proposed wastewater treatment plant does not meet the minimum separation distances set out within Table 6.2 of the 'Code of Practice: Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems serving Single Houses (EPA 2021)'. The Planning Authority is therefore not satisfied that the proposed development can adequately treat and dispose of wastewater without presenting a public health and safety risk to the adjoining property. The proposal in its current form would therefore be contrary to Objective WW11 and Section 9.6.5, Volume 1, of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and Section 8.3.1, Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 6a699b1af5066ff5de23dab334c4a63a9d912c3dcd56d497826c5a1d1035bb0c

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

1. The proposed development would materially intensify traffic movements to/from the overall site which has undefined access/egress arrangements to/from the Class 1 regional road R733, where the maximum speed limit applies. Furthermore, the proposed access point to the R733 is located outside of the application site and insufficient information has been submitted on: - likely traffic movements and a Road Safety Audit; - the provision of 220m sightlines in both directions; - clear demarcation of existing parking and manoeuvring areas; - the provision of suitable surface to the access and car park. As such the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazards and would be contrary to Section 8.7.1.2 and Objectives TS73 and TS75 of Volume 1 and Section 6.2.6 of Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Insufficient information has been submitted on how surface water would be effectively managed at the site to prevent ponding on the site and/or discharges to the public road or adjoining property. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Objective SWM01 of Volume 1 and Section 6.2.6 of Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the Slaney River Valley SAC or the Wexford Harbour and Slobs SPA.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

4. A Site Specific Flood Risk Assessment has not been submitted. As such it has not been demonstrated that flood risks would not be generated. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Objective FRM01 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022 - 2028 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

5. The provision of charging points serving one single car manufacturer would set a dangerous precedent for the proliferation of electrical charging points throughout the County. The proposed development would set a precedent for the numerous electrical car makers to build exclusive use charging points 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: ad3e95f77978418b8ec48b1aad38154ee77b23b718936d00dd65fab8b5740101

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

1. Outline permission cannot be applied to a protected structure as insufficient information has been submitted on the scale and design of the proposed dwelling, impacts on existing and proposed boundary treatments and landscaping to enable proper assessment of the potential impacts of the proposed development on Protected Structure ref. WBC0009. As such the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Insufficient information has been submitted on intentions for water supply, wastewater and surface water management. As such the proposed development would be contrary to objectives WS07, WW01 and SWM01 of Volume 1 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ff030c588e82e0351503a9544b6f1040ec83c0d8975d1ea6a1d72b70b0db5b7c

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

1. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not have significantly adverse impacts on the amenities of existing adjoining, and potential future, residents as: - insufficient information has been submitted on existing and proposed private amenity space; - insufficient information has been submitted on proposed, and impacts on existing, boundary treatments; - the overall floor area, living room size and storage area provision within the proposed living unit does not comply with the Design Standards for Apartments Guidelines for Planning Authorities. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Sections 3.5 and 3.8 of Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. It has not been demonstrated that satisfactory access, car and bicycle parking arrangements can be provided for the occupiers of the proposed house and the existing house on the site. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Sections 3.8 and 6 of Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. Insufficient information has been submitted with regard to surface water management at the site. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Objcetive SWM01 of Volume 1 and Section 8.2 of Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 1d30438eac307b33573785e2df86a6f73e44c76b32f13af4820fdc6dc2ce064d

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

Source note: The official case catalogue for 26/60061 links the Notification of Decision dated 12 August 2026. The complete refusal reason is on PDF page 2; the cited source hash identifies the checked document.

1. Having regard to: (a) the revised layout, which is considered to provide a lesser quality in terms of public open space; (b) the removal of the ramped park, which will result in the removal of pedestrian and cycle connections, the removal of a visual break between streets and buildings and the reduction of opportunities for passive surveillance to Open Space 3; (c) the addition of a small and irregularly shaped area of Public Open Space (Open Space 3); and (d) The fragmentation and separation of the southern part of Open Space 2 from the majority of the dwellings on the upper road, resulting in a lack of passive surveillance and a disjointed and unconnected layout The proposed revisions to PRR 25/29 would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would materially contravene objectives CPO 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5 of the Wicklow CDP 2022 - 2028, which is to ensure that new housing shall enhance and improve the residential amenity of any location and shall provide for the highest possible standard of living of occupants.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 8ca02f1634990ae85372715ee15d576795079a8589d9bcf2916b9355dcd7a5f6

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

Source note: Open the official case catalogue for 26/60574 and select the notification of decision to refuse dated 14 August 2026. The quoted reasons are on PDF page 2; the source document SHA-256 is retained.

1. Having regard to a) Planning Permission PRR 19/648 which provided for the importation of soils on site in an area of 3.7 ha, and b) The scope of the existing imported soils in-situ, outside of the prescribed area permitted under PRR 19/648, The proposed development would represent the consolidation of un-authorised development on this site. The provision of such a form of development unduly impacts on the amenities of the area, public health, the amenities of adjoining properties, undermines the planning regulations and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

2. Having regard to a) The absence of an adequate assessment concerning the impact of the development proposal on ecology / ground and surface water, b) The provisions of Appendix 1, Section 2.3.5 of the County Development Plan 2022-2028, c) The absence of an Appropriate Assessment Screening Report, and d) The Department of Environment “Appropriate Assessment of Plans and Projects in Ireland, Guidelines for Planning Authorities”, 2009, It is considered that insufficient information has been provided as to ensure that the development proposal would not be prejudicial to public health, natural heritage, and biodiversity, and that insufficient information has been submitted as to screen the development to confirm that there will be no impacts on any Natura 2000 site. To determine the application in the absence of the adequate information would be contrary to the policies of the County Development Plan 2022-2028, the conservation objectives of the Natura 2000 sites, the Appropriate Assessment Guidelines, and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

3. Having regard to the proximity of neighbouring residential occupiers to the development site and to the absence of an assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on the neighbouring properties in terms of noise and dust generation, the development would be injurious the residential amenities of properties in the vicinity, and would not accord with the objectives of the County Development Plan 2022-2028, namely CPO 15.10 and CPO 15.15, and as such 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: 65fd7b74a31d14e30dc0b8468f6c1de354084f3b22224fdb28424352ca018bd3

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

Source note: Open the official case catalogue for 26/60608 and select the notification of decision to refuse dated 14 August 2026. The quoted reasons are on PDF page 2; the source document SHA-256 is retained.

1. Having regard to a) The proposed access onto the R756 Regional Road; b) The traffic turning movements generated by the proposed development; c) The excessive landscaping works that would be required to achieve the appropriate sightlines; d) The policy of the Planning Authority to strictly control new means of access onto a regional road It is considered that the proposed development would interfere with the free flow of traffic onto the R756, would increase the frequency of traffic conflicts on this busy regional road and would endanger public safety by reason of serious traffic hazard, and would contravene the objectives of the CDP, namely CPO 12.48 concerning the means of new access onto a regional road. It The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

2. Having regard to the location of the site within the Newtown Marshes pNHA and the failure of the Ecological Impact Assessment to demonstrate that the proposed development by itself and the precedent it would set would not have a negative impact on the hydrology and hydrogeology of the Newtown Marshes pNHA and in turn the ecology and habitats supported by this pNHA, it is considered that the proposal would be contrary to the protection of this habitat and to Objectives 17.1, 17.4 and CPO 17.7 of the CDP 2022-2028 which seeks to protect such habitats from inappropriate development. The development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

3. Having regards to a) The elevated and exposed nature of the subject site; b) The siting of the proposed development and its relationship with the contours of the site; c) The extent of existing roadside boundary including hedgerows/tree planting to be removed to accommodate the proposed entrance and; d) the excessive hardscaping proposed for the extent of the driveway to serve the dwelling; It is considered that the proposed development would be an incongruous and intrusive in the landscape, would result in the erosion of the rural landscape and would militate against the preservation and protection of the rural and visual amenities of the area, and would be contrary to Objective 6.44 of the CDP 2022-2028 which provides that all new rural housing is well designed, simple, unobtrusive, responds to the site’s characteristics and is informed by the principles set out in the Wicklow Single Rural House Design Guide and should demonstrate good integration within the wider landscape.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 5e6ec88a655400f3da32c6a123d7dde8d0765e5c4326617ba10b909ba03717ca