Refusal decisions · 17 August–23 August 2026

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

1. The unauthorised works have resulted in the loss of historic fabric, alterations to the historic layout and changes to approved materials which have adversely affected the character, integrity and heritage significance of the Protected Structure. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that these works have been adequately justified or that they accord with accepted conservation practice. The development is therefore contrary to Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would set an undesirable precedent for unauthorised works to Protected Structures.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: f03af3f95987330fa4d0f7d26667f2895b0f2daac5f5362a34f065f8928376d2

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

1. The proposed development would result in a substandard form of residential accommodation by reason of the inadequate bedroom dimensions within Dwelling 2 and the failure to satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with the Planning Design Standards for Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2025). Furthermore, the restricted bedroom window openings and reliance on high-level rooflight openings serving habitable accommodation would result in an unacceptable standard of residential amenity for future occupants. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the Housing Strategy, Placemaking Strategy and Development Management Standards relating to Residential Development (Section 16.4.4), Design and Layout (Section 16.4.4.9) and Apartments (Section 16.4.4.10) of the Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development, by reason of the failure to achieve the recommended separation distance between opposing windows and the reliance on a 1.8m high solid terrace enclosure to mitigate overlooking, would result in an unacceptable impact on residential amenity. The proposal would give rise to concerns relating to overlooking, privacy and sunlight for both existing and future occupants and would create an unsatisfactory residential environment. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, height, massing and design within a constrained secondary rear-lane location, would appear as an overly dominant form of development that would adversely affect the established character, appearance and hierarchy of the surrounding built environment. The proposal would represent an inappropriate and visually intrusive form of development that fails to satisfactorily integrate with its surroundings and would therefore be contrary to the Housing Strategy, Placemaking Strategy and Development Management Standards relating to Residential Development (Section 16.4.4) and Design and Layout (Section 16.4.4.9) of the Longford County Development Plan 2021-2027 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: 80cf3ce42b5eb8c8d0ea61bde4c7a50632fedc0a85444880b2ef1f39d3368688

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

1. There would appear to be an unauthorised coffee shop building in operation on the site, within the rear yard area to Donegan’s Bar, which does not form part of this planning application (including further information response) and for which, there are no k nown planning records. The Planning Authority is precluded from granting permission that would consolidate unauthorised development. To grant permission for the subject development in its current form would, therefore, consolidate the existing unauthorised development on the site, set an undesirable precedent for further unauthorised development and contravene the proper planning and orderly development of the area, within the settlement of Collon and Collon Architectural Conservation Area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The submitted Noise Impact Assessment Report (NIA) (as prepared by Traynor Environmental Ltd, dated 24th July 2026) has been based on a prediction of noise emissions associated with external patron activity, internal entertainment uses and ancillary operat ions. The NIA report refers to the rear yard to Donegan’s as being a designated smoking area ancillary to the bar and that activities within this smoking area is limited to patrons temporarily accessing the space for short duration social interaction. It notes that this area is not intended for amplified music, live entertainment or organised events and no external speaks or public address systems are proposed. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the further information response submitted clarifies that the beer garden with kitchen and bar have been long established and that the intention is to serve food to customers in the future and that the hours of operat ion will be dictated by the weather due to the nature of the space, but will be within the operational hours of the established public house. Furthermore, the proposal also includes the provision of a retractable roof over this area, which would suggest it can be used during a range of weather conditions and it would appear that the yard is currently being used as a fully functioning beer garden and entertainment space. In addition, an operational unauthorised coffee shop building appears to have since been constructed in this area which is not accounted for within the application or NIA. In having regard to the above, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the submitted NIA has fully considered all aspects of the development, including the use of the external rear yard area and its associated activities and noise levels and as suc h, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the existing and proposed development would not seriously harm the amenities of surrounding residential properties by virtue of excess noise and / or other associated disturbances arising from the development.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: a380c4b98bf2bd7cca95d494b5392755da59b49c0800d51e001db9cf7d5f6f27

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

1. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that adequate information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development can provide for adequate management and disposal of surface water in accordance with Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) principles and Policy Objective IU 19 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027 (as varied). In response to further information Request no. 2, the applicant has failed to provide satisfactory details of the proposed surface water drainage arrangements. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to Policy Objective IU 19 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027 (as varied) 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: 0b89957e14a7a4ea2b3816daa38cbc930ac59b9730287edc09e8bfc7778efa2d

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

1. The development as proposed, which involves the creation of access road in excess of 100m in length to serve a single dwelling house located to the rear of existing dwelling houses along this stretch of rural road, would, create an undesirable precedent, leading to further proposals for in depth- suburban type development in an un-serviced rural area, and would, both by itself and the precedent it would set, mitigate against the preservation of the rural landscape which it is necessary to preserve. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: d74d65931bdef0432c5aac8b743bc363665144a07ca9e217ad5857d4821cc53e

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

1. Having regard to the location of the proposed development which would generate increased traffic from an existing vehicular access onto the N59 National route, the proposal would be contrary to the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 with specific reference to Policy MTP-24 which states ‘To avoid the creation of additional direct access points from new development adjoining national roads or the generation of additional traffic from existing direct accesses to national roads to which speed limits greater than 60 km/h apply’. Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would be at variance with the Mayo County Development Plan 2022 - 2028 policy in relation to development involving access onto national roads, would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and obstruction of road and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The site is located within a rural area outside of any town or village boundary, therefore the proposed development for change of use to an education and training centre for medical devices would be contrary to Objective EDO 54 of the current Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028, which aims to facilitate rural enterprises and resource development that are dependent on their locality in rural locations. The proposed development, if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for unsuitable non rural dependent commercial development in the rural area, would constitute haphazard development in a rural area which would militate against the preservation of the rural environment and interfere with the character of the landscape at this location which it is necessary to preserve. The proposed development is, therefore, contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2, 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ca7fc0f1ada74c3c1c2ee59559386386038038899e107adaf9ec5bb904b6224a

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

1. The subject is zoned ‘RA – Rural Area’, where the Planning Authority will support the continued vitality and viability of rural areas, environmentally, socially and commercially by promoting sustainable social and economic development (RUR DEV SO 1). The Planning Authority has reviewed planning history records and in conjunction with confirmation from the applicant that they are not in possession of planning permission documentation, it has been concluded that there is no planning permission in place for the current use / activities on the subject site. It is therefore considered that the proposed development for retention and permission would be contrary to strategic objective RUR DEV SO 1 on the basis that there is no established or permitted commercial use on the application site. As such, the applicant is seeking permission for ancillary structures to serve a vehicle repair garage use which does not in itself have the benefit of planning permission. The proposed development therefore constitutes development intended to serve an unauthorised development and for this reason, the development would be premature, contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, would establish an undesirable future precedent for developments of this kind and would be contrary to the above provisions of the Meath County Development Plan 2021 – 2027.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The proposed development is not in accordance with the Greater Dublin Strategic Drainage Study (GDSDS) Regional Drainage Policies V olume 2, for New Developments and the Greater Dublin Regional Code of Practice for Drainage Works V olume 6. The development as proposed does not meet the requirements of Meath County Council Environment Flooding-Surface Water Section with respect to the orderly collection, treatment and disposal of surface water. The applicant has not provided sufficient detailed information regarding the design of the surface water system and therefore the Environment department cannot make an informed decision on the surface water design. From a Surface Water perspective, the Planning Authority cannot recommend that Planning permission be granted. The proposed development, if permitted, would be contrary to the aforementioned Guidelines and would materially contravene policy INF POL 16 of the Meath County Development Plan (as varied).

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the required visibility splays in accordance with TII Standard DN -GEO-03060, can be provided and maintained at the site entrance. Accordingly, the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

4. In the absence of sufficient and pertinent information demonstrating that compliance of the existing system or proposal for a new wastewater system as required in EPA (2021) Code of Practice for Domestic Waste Water Treatment Systems (PE≤10), it is consid ered that the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development would not be prejudicial to public health with respect to wastewater treatment and would contravene RD POL 48 and RD POL 49 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: e95c62980fdbd39c2811e1c18c759d3817d82a1aa3bfd7326f661dc362665e07

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

1. The proposed development is located in a Rural Area, the objective of which is “to encourage the continued sustainable development of rural communities without compromising the physical, environmental, natural and heritage resources of the County”. By virtue of its scale and design, the proposed development is considered to represent an inappropriate and commercial form of construction, which would be detrimental to the visual and residential amenities of the area (RUR DEV SO 6), would set an unde sirable precedent for other similar development, depreciate the value of property in the vicinity 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 demonstrate the full extent and nature of the development in order to justify the proposed construction of a structure of this scale at this rural location, (DM OBJ 51), which would be out of keeping with the established residen tial nature of the subject site and area. The proposed development would, therefore, establish an undesirable future precedent for developments of this kind 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: 71270be2bf2a27f92d9b84995101afc7399df3cb38b11383cabe7ea931a268c2

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

1. The relevant legislation, Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2024 in this instance, requires that a number of requirements be complied with to allow a Planning Authority to extend an appropriate period. One such requirement specified under Section 42(1)(c)(ii) required that ‘substantial works were carried out pursuant to the permission during that period’. The development permitted under Pl. Ref. 21/1295 has yet to commence; as such, the Planning Authority is precluded from extending the appropriate period of same

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 19c2c82849768a46391f247ee5e60d4dae74c61ac7698dc361517bffbe375a59

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 within an area of the County that is designated as a “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 de fined 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 however that the applicants do not comply with the above policy as the applicants are not one of the defined categories of applicant outlined in SSP -27 and accordingly the proposed development would materially contravene the 2021 -2027 Offaly County Development Plan 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: 7d759c0dc43b7eb91f22803d1f80cb6786edf885a1bc1ee70e577f4e58780cf1

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

1. The Planning Authority in consultation with Roscommon County Councils Environment Department is not satisfied based on submissions received that it has been satisfactorily evidenced that dewatering will not be required to facilitate the proposed development and that satisfactory proposals for and assessment of dewatering arrangements have been provided. It is considered therefore that based on the information submitted in the Environmental Impact Assessment Report (as updated) and as identified in the Environmental Impact Assessment carried out by the Planning Authority, a sufficient level of information and assessment has not been provided in relation to impacts on Water and Biodiversity (with particular attention to Habitats and Birds Directives). Having regard to the foregoing, it is therefore concluded that there is insufficient information and insufficient mitigation measures provided for the competent authority to make an EIA determination that there is an acceptably low likelihood of environmental effects of a magnitude which would give rise to a significant effect on sensitive environmental receptors as a result of the proposed development proceeding. Therefore, if permitted, the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of policy objectives ED 6.17 and ED 6.18 set out in the Roscommon County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1, 2

2. The site of the proposed development is potentially hydrologically connected to 7 no. designated European sites (listed below) for rare and threatened flora and fauna across the European Union (i.e. Natura 2000 network of sites), which are protected under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43/EEC). The protection of these European sites is further reinforced in the 2022 – 2028 Roscommon County Development Plan under Policy Objectives NH10.8, NH 10.9 and ED 6.18. Based on the deficiency in information included with the planning application including, inter alia, the absence of detailed evidence to substantiate that dewatering is not required to facilitate the proposed development and/or detailed proposals to manage dewatering in the quarry, and the concerns identified by the Planning Authority in relation to the robustness of the mitigation measures proposed, deficiencies in the information contained in the NIS concerning potential impacts of the project on qualifying interests of the European Sites, the Planning Authority in conjunction with the application of the precautionary principle, consider that adverse effects on the integrity and conservation objectives of the European sites in the vicinity, cannot be ruled out, as a result of the proposed project. Therefore, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the development, if permitted, would not potentially adversely affect the integrity of Lough Croan Turlough SAC (site code 000610), Castlesampson Esker SAC (site code 001625), Four Roads Turlough (site code 001637), Lisduff Turlough (site code 000609), Lough Croan Turlough SPA (site code 004139), River Suck Callows SPA (site code 004097) and Four Roads Turlough SPA (site code 004140), having regard to their conservation objectives. Therefore, if permitted, the proposed development would be contrary to the above referenced policy objectives contained in the current Roscommon County Development Plan, 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: 8b26ef2bc5d5549268170f96621df989e65854af7213c5d43fe2a3e1be6388e1

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

1. By reason of its elevated and exposed location, and as the development would constitute an isolated dwelling in an open agricultural area detached from the existing pattern of development, the proposed dwelling would be visually prominent in the rural landscape and would adversely impact upon the scenic and visual amenities of the area. The siting of the proposed development is therefore contrary to policy P-RHOU-2 and the guidance contained in Section 33.4.2, 'Site Selection - Locating a House in the Landscape', of the Sligo County Development Plan 2024- 2030 (as varied). The proposed development would therefore be detrimental to the character of the rural landscape, would establish an undesirable precedent for similar development , and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area

   Official final decision · PDF page 4

2. The applicant has not stated their current housing circumstances or confirmed that they do not own any other dwelling(s) within the respective rural area, nor whether the proposed dwelling is intended to be for their permanent occupation. Therefore, having regard to the requirements of SP-S-10, it cannot be concluded that the applicant’s housing need could not be met elsewhere.

   Official final decision · PDF page 4

3. Uisce Éireann have stated that there is insufficient information submitted with the application to confirm that the proposed dwelling house can be serviced for water supply.

   Official final decision · PDF page 4

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 82c962a8ca656a4199769c6e0761b49649450cc9d5af1572728e2f1213a0ae13

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

1. The proposed revisions to the site boundary at further information stage to provide foul and stormwater sewer connections to the public networks cannot be considered by way of significant further information, as it is considered that these works represent a fundamental change to the development. It is the opinion of the Planning Authority that the proposed surface water pump station and rising main as per details submitted to the Planning Authority on the 21st August 2025, is not an acceptable means of serving the site, therefore, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that an adequate connection to the surface water drainage network is technically feasible. Furthermore, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that it has been demonstrated in the details submitted to the Planning Authority on the 21 st August 2025 that it is technically feasible to the satisfaction of Uisce Éireann, as the Water Authority, to undertake diversions of existing services on site. The proposed development would therefore be premature pending the resolution of the deficiency in the provision of an adequate connection to the public stormwater network and sewerage facilities and the absence of a solution to same and as such would be contrary to public health and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. Having regard to the location of the detention basin to the rear of two apartment blocks it is considered that the area is not suitably integrated into the overall development as an amenity area and therefore fails to meet all of the four main objectives o f Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Furthermore, it is considered that the design of the detention basin, with particular reference to the inclusion of ‘steps’ and the overall depth of temporary storage, would inhibit ease of access for maintenance, it s use as amenity space and create a safety hazard, and as such the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policy UTL 09 of the Waterford City and County Development Plan 2022 – 2028 and would cause an increased risk to public safety by means of a safety hazard. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the policies of the Waterford City and County Development Plan 2022 - 2028 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 8e8754889f7bb7c3b5d9c2a54471cb0510add2462b31d604085b905521876bc5

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

1. The proposed development, by reason of its piecemeal and ad hoc backland character on a narrow and constrained site, its dependence on a lengthy access road traversing unzoned lands and extending between and to the rear of existing residential properties, and its poor integration with the established settlement structure, would constitute an inappropriate and unsustainable form of development. The proposal would represent an ill ogical and fragmented extension of the settlement, create an undesirable precedent and result in an adverse impact on the residential amenities of adjoining properties. The proposed layout is overly dominated by access roads and car parking, resulting in a poor- quality residential environment. The generic design approach, unsympathetic relationship with adjoining single -storey dwellings, inadequate boundary treatments, an d fragmented areas of public open space fail to achieve an acceptable standard of urban design, placemaking, and residential amenity. In addition, a portion of the proposed development is located on lands not zoned for residential use, contrary to the land use zoning objectives of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021-2027. Having regard to the foregoing, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would materially contravene the provisions of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021-2027, and would be contrary to policy objectives CPO 4.7, CPO 4.11, CPO 4.13, CPO 15.2, CPO 16.10 and CPO 16.11.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: c0d158e3f7f0633ae3de33f5224289c5fe57b87e2ea73d8cc85a9a2496b53110

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

1. Having regard to the location of the proposed development in proximity to the existing host dwelling and relative to the adjacent properties , it is considered that the proposed development would constitute overdevelopment of the site and would result in a substandard pattern of residential development that would provide an unsatisfactory and sub-standard form of residential development, that would significantly impact on the residential amenity for future occupants of the existing dwelling, and would seriously injure the neighbouring residential amenity of existing residents by a lack of private open space, and the lack of light penetration to the main host dwelling. It would depreciate the value of properties in the vicinity and set an undesirable precedent for other similar type development. Accordingly, to permit the development as proposed would contravene Councils policy objective s CPO 16.10 and CPO 16.13 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021 -2027 and would be contrary to the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlement Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2024 and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development, by reason of its overall scale, design and layout which encompasses the majority of existing private rear garden open space will result in an inadequate provision of remaining private open space for both the existing host dwelling and the additional unit of accommodation. The proposed development built in close proximity to the existing main host dwelling with a 2m separation distance will impede light penetration to the ground floor of the main host dwelling and result in a significant loss of natural light . The proposed development would provide for significant opportunities for overlooking and will directly impact the residential amenities of the host dwelling and neighbouring adjacent property to the south-east, and would provide an inadequate provision of refuse and bicycle storage facilities, and would therefore, seriously injure the amenities of existing and future residents of the area contrary to policy objective CPO 16.10, CPO 16.14 and CPO 16.20 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021-2027. Accordingly, the proposed development 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: b0bc04558cccea0112a027e8c08e69019b37ffbcfa21d4da410c8d2a7887d6d3

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

1. The proposed change of use to a takeaway, by reason of its location within the primary retail core of Athlone Town Centre, would result in an undesirable over-concentration of takeaway and fast-food uses in the area, to the detriment of the vitality, viabi lity and retail function of the town centre. The site occupies a prominent location within the Athlone Architectural Conservation Area and adjacent to recently completed public realm and regeneration works. It is considered that the nature of the proposed use, together with the proposed signage proposals, would detract from the character, appearance and visual amenities of th is Architectural Conservation Area, undermine the substantial public investment in the regeneration of the town centre, and fail to contribute positively to the quality of the pedestrianised streetscape. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and contrary to the provisions of Section 12.16.7 of the Athlone Town Development Plan and policy objective CPO 16.40 of the Westmeath County Development Plan which seeks to prevent an excessive concentration of takeaways in any given area in order to maintain a balanced mix of retail, commercial and community uses, while also safeguarding the character, vitality and night-time amenity of the town centre.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 093108a148afe346fc6ca2284e12dedbe9072306ce95f826cbcd9c56c72e99a1

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 decision dated 19 August 2026. This is an incomplete public ground set.

2. Having regard to the Rural Housing Policy as set out under Section 4.9.1 and Table 4-6 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 relating to downsizing, the applicant’s proposal does not comply with current policy and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. Insufficient information and clarity have been submitted in respect of the wastewater assessment for the proposed site. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: fdc6709cab10769bbde8b066b603ccfe7b58e44c638824464161fcfe22ba5869

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

Source note: Open the official case file for 26/60623 and its documents to find the Notification of Decision to Refuse dated 19 August 2026. The complete refusal schedule is on PDF page 2; the citation retains the reviewed document hash.

1. The proposed development would represent consolidation of un-authorised development on this site, having regard to: a) the existing development on site, comprised of structures in addition to the garage for retention, for which no permission exists; b) the commercial activity being carried out on site; c) the resurfacing of the site for which no permission exists The provision of such a form of development unduly impacts on the amenities of the area, public health, the amenities of adjoining properties, traffic safety, 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. The location of the gravelled area access/ parking area for the garage has impacted on the effluent treatment system serving the existing dwelling, and to allow this development would be prejudicial to public health and proper planning and sustainable development.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

3. Having regard to i. the garage permitted by reference to PRR 10/2172, and its current scale due to extended areas c. 80sqm, ii. the garage for retention which is c. 41sqm It is considered that the retention of this additional garage, when viewed in conjunction with the existing structures on the site, would contribute to an excessive cumulative size and scale of such development, would be over and above the needs of the dwelling and could not be considered ancillary to the main dwelling. To allow this structure would set an undesirable precedent for similar large-scale development in the absence of a genuine need and would be contrary to the amenities of the area and to proper planning and sustainable development.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 882dc26dbdec3040db885dc337bdb3623b1d800d7aefa61da20d0062cc99ad87

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

Source note: Open the official case file for 26/60620 and its documents to find the Notification of Decision to Refuse dated 20 August 2026. The complete refusal schedule is on PDF page 2; the citation retains the reviewed document hash.

1. Having regard to (i) the location of the proposed entrance onto a heavily trafficked regional road in close proximity to the junction and interchange associated with the M11 National Primary Route (ii) the lack of adequate sightlines achievable at the proposed entrance It is considered that the proposed development would result in a serious traffic hazard, and would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

2. Having regard to i. objective WTR81 of the Wicklow Town - Rathnew Local Area Plan 2025, which seeks to support the implementation of the recommendations of the Transport Assessment with regard to the delivery of new regional/distributor roads and road improvements, including the completion of the Rathnew Inner Relief Road including reconfiguration of road network between Junction 16 and Rathnew Village to re direct Wicklow Town-bound flows away from the Aldi-Tinakilly traffic lights and the village centre; ii. the precise alignment of the Rathnew Inner Relief Road and the location of its junction/ merge point with the R772 have not yet been determined, it is considered that the proposed development would be premature pending the determination by the road’s authority of a road layout for the area, and therefore would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 9056d5e67150ee9b6b398ca2e0fd888305b295d299ca30ab5d913203b6f25b2d