Refusal decisions · 17–23 Aug 2026

The proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard because the site is served by a narrow and substandard access road which is inadequate to cater for the additional traffic movements. The proposal will lead to an over-intensification of the access laneway both with its interaction with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In particular additional traffic movements into the laneway may potentially lead to vehicular traffic having to wait on the R639 during a turning movement to allow pedestrians to clear the laneway. The traffic movements likely to be generated by the development would interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the public road.

The proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard because the site is served by a narrow and substandard access road which is inadequate to cater for the additional traffic movements. The proposal will lead to an over-intensification of the access laneway both with its interaction with vehicular and pedestrian traffic. In particular additional traffic movements into the laneway may potentially lead to vehicular traffic having to wait on the R639 during a turning movement to allow pedestrians to clear the laneway. The traffic movements likely to be generated by the development would interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the public road.

In the Cork County Development Plan 2022-2028, the existing dwelling is located in a designated High Value Landscape which is visible from the Scenic Route S59. Having regard to the elevated and very prominent location of the existing dwelling and noting its scale/bulk and dominant presence in the landscape, it is considered that the addition of the proposed development would result in overdevelopment of the site and result in an incongrous, visually discordant feature that would seriously detract from the visual and scenic amenities of the area. The proposed development would be overbearing and overly dominant and would seriously injure the scenic amenities of this sensitive coastal landscape. It would be contrary to policy objectives GI 14-9 and GI 14-10 of the County Development Plan 2022-2028 which seek to protect the visual and scenic amenities of County Cork, would be contrary to policy objective GI 14-12 which seeks to preserve the character of all important views and contrary to policy objectives GI 14-13 and GI 14-14 which seek to protect the character of those views and prospects obtainable form scenic routes. Furthermore, it would seriously injure the residential amenities of adjoining properties in the vicinity by way of overbearing impact on same. Finally, it would set an undesirable precedent for similarly scaled developments in the vicinity. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the policy objectives of the County Development Plan and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Having regard to the limited progress made on the implementation of the permitted dwellinghouse and to the substantial extent of works outstanding, the Planning Authority is precluded from granting the extension of duration of permission permitted under Planning Reg. Ref. No. 21/4762, as the application does not fall within the scope of Sections 42(1)(A) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. The proposed development would be contrary to Section 42 (1) (A) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

1. It is considered that the proposed development type has not been adequately justified in the context of the protected structure to the rear of and adjoining the site (RPS ID 1354), and in the context of the Architectural Conservation Area. The non-sympathetic alteration of the streetscape and the removal of features that contribute to the character and integrity of the ACA and would result in an inappropriate development design which would actively detract from the character of the Architectural Conservation Area. The proposed development does not demonstrate an understanding of the setting in the context of Mitchelstown as one of the county’s most intact planned towns; nor of the protection status through the use of conservation professional/s. The proposed development would be contrary to the Objective HE16-14 (f) and (h) and HE16-18 (a-b) and (j) in the Cork County Development Plan 2022 and to Architectural Heritage Protection, Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in December 2004, in relation to development within the setting of protected structures and in Architectural Conservation Areas and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The proposed development would provide for a residential unit which would not have the benefit of dedicated private amenity space, insufficient internal storage space and no external storage or other storage provision which may be required for bins and/or bicycles. Furthermore, the floor area of bedroom 2 does not meet the 7.1 sq m minimum floor area for a single bedroom as required by the Quality Housing for Sustainable Communities 2007 Ministerial Guidelines. In addition, the height of the proposal is considered to be excessive and may detract from the residential amenity of adjoining and adjacent structures by way of overbearing and potential loss of light. Accordingly, the development would constitute a substandard and unacceptable form of residential accommodation which would be incapable of providing an adequate level of residential amenity for future occupants as well as actively detracting from the established residential amenity of adjacent and adjoining properties. It is also considered that the proposed development may set an undesirable precedent for similar types of substandard development in the area and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. As such, it is concluded that the proposed development represents the over-development of a restrictive and physically constrained urban site which would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. The design of the proposed development is inconsistent with the established pattern of development and associated character of Thomas Street. Consequently, it is considered that the proposed development does not accord with the principles of good urban design and will actively detract from the character of Thomas Street. In particular, the height of the proposed town house and the pattern of fenestration is at odds with the simple proportions of Thomas Street. As such, the proposed development is inconsistent with the provisions of Objective MH-GO-04 and Objective MH-GO-06 and therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.