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 site and proposed development is located in an area zoned Community/Education in the Ballon Small Town Plan 2022-2028 as contained within the Carlow County Development Plan 2022-2028. The zoning objective here is to protect and provide for community and educational facilities/uses. The purpose of this zoning is to provide for and safeguard community, educational and civic facilities. The proposed change of use of existing permitted nursing home to a single dwelling house use is not Permitted in Principle Use nor an Open for Consideration Use within this zoning. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the zoning objective for this area/site as contained within the Ballon Small Town Plan 2022-2028 and would, therefore, materially contravene the zoning of the area/site and the Carlow County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 883ee60eee5c99da84c5acffb2eeb1f809f2a2dae70ea9e4c862b2f0f091951d

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

1. Having regard to Section 12.13.2 Rural Housing of the Cavan County Development Plan 2022-2028 which requires applicants seeking permission to demonstrate that the proposed dwelling constitutes their first home within the locality and on the basis of the information provided, it is considered that the proposed development would materially contravene Section 12.13.2 and Objective RH 01 of the Cavan County Development Plan 2022 - 2028 and would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development of the local area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 7ea5226d6af32029db28ea2a3b2c38db4642046654335b2b544e1b408e7dcaa4

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 on a Scenic Route, within a Seascape Character Area and within a designated Heritage Landscape as per the Clare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied), the open and elevated nature of the proposal site, the views available towards the site from the north east, east, south and south west, the nature of the development proposed, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would represent a visually obtrusive and incongruous feature in the receiving landscape, would result in the development being a prominent landmark clearly visible over a wide area, would not be in keeping with the open expansive coastal character of the area, would have adverse impacts on the views available from the adjacent Scenic Route towards the south west, and would have adverse impacts on the character of this elevated coastal landscape. Therefore, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of Development Plan objectives CDP 14.5 Heritage Landscapes, CDP 14.6 Seascape Character areas, CDP Objectives 14.7 Scenic Routes and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 7d9263aa0bf5274af802b8c2703a1070e3d107223467673ecbb1aabfc5dbacfa

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

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 Conservatio n 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 Environmen t, 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.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

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.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

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.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2, 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 0446be19b125cc5c29e145cd4ae15421852cf3e143040956706c26e941b7432b

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

1. 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).

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ecdd53388cfa9f841661dad680bf0ed8795a70e37bfea048dc0b3e2e0925da52

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

1. In the Cork County Development Plan 2022-2028, the existing dwelling is located in a designated High V alue 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.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: f7721d1aba13bb19c8fb2aeeb9a6f198aa3308b624cbd64490f782cd860d6bd1

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

1. 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.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 3bdfb65a7707b1e07d5ff4a6d156904e32b0a2571ed76d0219928944a8770674

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

1. 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.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: fb0def9bbc4d94e71ee95f565109ec6fe971b91bd2b304ea1a8e64de795d831b

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

Source note: Open the official case file for 26/50091 and its documents to find Notification of Decision RP dated 21 August 2026, Chief Executive’s Order 2026PH2321. The refusal schedule is on PDF page 2; the citation retains the reviewed document hash.

1. The proposed development, which seeks the change of use of a residential unit to short-term letting accommodation, is located within an area designated as ‘Area Under Strong Holiday Home Influence’. It would result in the loss of an existing residential unit from the permanent housing stock and its replacement with a non-permanent tourism-related use. This is contrary to the provisions of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024–2030 (as varied), including Policy RH-P-2, Objective RH-O-2 and the policy framework which resists the proliferation of holiday homes and non-permanent residential uses in such areas, and seeks to safeguard housing stock for permanent occupation. The proposal is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

2. The proposed development would result in the removal of a residential unit from the long-term housing market in an area experiencing strong holiday home influence and associated housing demand. This is contrary to national policy as set out in Circular SPI 01/2026, which requires planning authorities to have regard to housing demand, the efficient use of existing housing stock, and the need to retain residential units for long-term occupation. The development would therefore 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: a55de6b3f06c614576bad03cc025cfd29265e576be6625d04a61cca0d3482a5d

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

Source note: Open the official case file for 26/61228 and its documents to find Notification of Decision RP dated 21 August 2026, Chief Executive’s Order 2026PH2325. The refusal schedule is on PDF page 2 and its ground 4 continuation on page 3; the citation retains the reviewed document hash.

1. The subject site is located on low-lying lands in close proximity to the River Finn and it is a policy of the Council ‘To only permit development where flood or surface water management issues can be successfully addressed and/or where there is no unacceptable residual flood risk for the development, its occupants and/or private property or public infrastructure elsewhere within the catchment.’ (Policy F-P-1 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 (as varied)). The Flood Risk Maps have identified the site within Flood Zone A & B which indicates that the subject site may be at high risk of fluvial flooding. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not be at risk of flooding or meet the criteria for appropriate development as required through a Justification Test/Flood Risk Assessment. Accordingly, to permit the development on the basis of the information submitted in support of the application would be contrary to the aforementioned policies of the County Development Plan and thus be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

2. It is policy within the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 (as varied) that proposals for new residential developments in settlements have due regard to inter alia, amenity, accessibility, massing, scale and integration (Policy UB-P-7 refers). Having regard to the scale, footprint, overall height and mass of the proposed development relative to third party properties and potential direct overlooking of adjacent properties to the east and potential loss of daylight and sunlight to the west of the site, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the proposed development integrates with neighbouring developments in an appropriate manner. To permit the proposed development would therefore materially contravene the policy provisions of Policy UB-P-7 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 (as varied) and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

3. Policy UB-P-9 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 (as varied) sets out that ‘It is the policy of the Council both to protect the residential amenity of existing residential units and to promote design concepts for new housing that ensures the establishment of reasonable levels of urban residential amenity’. On the basis of the information submitted, there is an absence of a private/communal amenity space and refuse facilities to provide for residential amenity for proposed residents. To permit the proposed development would therefore materially contravene the policy provisions of Policy UB-P-9 of the County Donegal Development Plan 2024-2030 (as varied) and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

4. The public road, serving the site area to the rear provides for a direct shared pedestrian and vehicular link to adjoining third party properties and onto the main street. Having regard to the location of the proposed development, it is considered that the development has the potential to endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and obstruction of road users due to lack of provision of car parking to serve the residential units. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Applicant is advised that from information available to the Planning Authority no records indicate the authorisation and consents for the single storey projection to the rear currently in use for storage purposes. Google imagery indicates it was erected between 2003-2010. In addition, there are no records available relating to authorisations and consents for Apartment No.1 at ground floor level nor Apartment No.2 at first floor level. In addition, any proposal to seek permission to revise the existing takeaway to an apartment. Any further proposals must include permission for a change of use in the description of development (if the applicant has not previously availed of the exemption provided for under Article 10 -if applicable to the site).

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2, 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: fa86f32a58e134f2042d21dec772bb0197d8deb2ce35e06d327814a8585bc63c

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

Source note: Open the official case file for 26/61262 and its documents to find Notification of Decision RP dated 21 August 2026, Chief Executive’s Order 2026PH2331. The refusal schedule is on PDF page 2; the citation retains the reviewed document hash.

1. Having regard to the scale of the existing structure on site serving the residential dwelling, it is considered this can adequately facilitate and cater for needs associated with the same and having regard to the proposed structure and use i.e. agriculture in terms of its ad hoc, sprawling nature, design, scale and floorspace (547.73sqm), it is considered that the proposed development would result in the provision of an excessive scale and an area of a structure in excess of that which would be considered commensurate to, or reasonably demonstrable, with needs arising ancillary to a dwelling house. Accordingly, it is considered that to permit the proposed development, would by itself, be injurious to the visual amenity and character of the host rural environment, would create an undesirable extension of a residential site and would set an undesirable precedent for similar developments and would thereby be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Applicant is advised that the Planning Authority has concerns regarding the scale, footprint and design of the proposal in the context of a residential site notwithstanding any need associated with the development. The design & scale as presented doesn’t go far enough to ensure that the proposal reads and respects the character of the host property. It is considered that there is scope on the adjoining lands to provide a separate agricultural structure of reduced scale to serve the same outside of the residential site with a greater set back from the adjoining public road network. As the site boundary is limited this matter cannot be dealt with in this application. In addition, from information available to the Planning Authority there does not appear to be authorisations/consent for the existing structure which is subject of demolition. This however could be addressed and resolved through a retention application if revisions are sought for the same for domestic purposes only. Any domestic structure associated with the adjoining dwelling will be required to redesign the proposal to ensure that the structure reads incidental and subordinate in terms of its scale and form and minimises all visual impacts considering the close set back to the adjoining public road. It is considered that has already been achieved by virtue of the existing structure and the applicant should look at alternative options of an agricultural shed (separate structure) with a demonstrated need for the same, of reduced scale and further set back from the public road on adjoining lands.

   Official case file · decision PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 087b3d10b701bfbae0d1866c90e7729efcfe103b7c2ad4a1d739500035fe9ff0

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

1. Having regard to the nature and scale of the proposed development, it is considered that the proposal, by reason of its design and layout, would offer a substandard level of internal residential amenity for future occupants. The proposal would be contrary to Policy Objectives PHP18, PHP35 and Section 12.3 of the Development Plan, and to SPPR 3 of the 2025 Apartment Guidelines. In addition, the scale, visual bulk, massing and design of the development would have a significant and negative impact on the amenity of neighbouring houses, by way of overlooking, overshadowing, and overbearing visual appearance. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy Objective PHP42 and the ‘A’ zoning objective of the site, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The applicant has not identified a requirement for the provision of retail space of the scale proposed at this location, on ‘A’ zoned lands. The proposed retail space provision, outside the core shopping area of Dún Laoghaire and in the absence of a demonstrated deficiency in retail floorspace in the area, would prejudice the overall retail function of Dún Laoghaire town centre, and would be contrary to Policy Objectives RET5 and RET8. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 129b2af0e1aa9fda34e03cc9e9ea997d12d75c32903ad3856235316d7f17316f

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

1. Having regard to the nature of the development to be retained, which comprises the retention of a rear extension and detached garden room, would result in the overdevelopment of the site and reduce the level of private amenity currently afforded to the property which is contrary to Section 12.3.7 Additional Accommodation in Existing Built-Up Areas and Section 12.8.3.3 (i) Private Open Space for Houses of the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028. Furthermore, the proposed development, if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent, 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: 26dd29dfff9c09ff4828d250b3d241ef45057c48094f72b2c1b9b33e2452a861

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

Source note: The assessment’s paragraph about Unit 1 later refers to Unit 2. That unit label has not been corrected. The adopted first ground addresses warehousing and other uses collectively; all four adopted grounds are retained.

1. The proposed development comprises Warehousing and other uses which are not permissible or compatible with the RU – Rural land-use zoning objective of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 and would fail to protect or promote, in a balanced way, the development of agriculture and rural-related enterprise, biodiversity, the rural landscape, and the built and cultural heritage. The proposed development would therefore materially contravene the RU land-use zoning objective; and would set an undesirable precedent for other such developments on RU zoned lands which, both in themselves and cumulatively, would be seriously injurious to the amenity value of the rural areas of the county. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 10

2. The proposed development is located within flood zones A & B and there is an existing watercourse running along the northern boundary of the site. No commensurate Flood Risk Assessment or any surface water drainage disposal proposals have been submitted as part of the application. The proposed development would contravene Objectives IUO16 & DMSO212 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 in this regard and the applicant has failed demonstrate the proposed development is in accordance with The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009). The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 10

3. Having regard to the insufficient level of detail submitted the full extent of development to have been undertaken on the site the absence of any identified planning history the sites location within an identified flood zone the presence of an existing watercourse along the northern boundary and, the absence of a Screening for Appropriate Assessment, the Planning Authority is not satisfied it can be determined, beyond reasonable scientific doubt and on the basis of complete, precise, and definitive findings, the proposed development will not have significant effects on any European sites during the construction or operation of the Proposed Project. The proposed development would contravene Objectives DMSO1, DMSO144 & DMSO145 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 in this regard and, therefore, would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 10, 11

4. The applicant has failed to demonstrate the required sightlines, in accordance with TII’s DN-GEO-03060 guidance document, are available at the site entrance at Mainscourt road and, as such, the proposed development is considered to represent a traffic hazard. The proposed development would contravene Objective DMSO118 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 in this regard and, therefore, would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 11

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 5e5e8095ff4b05978fc7290cf1bf1036f55830676549b94d515c9066c8a9a519

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

Source note: The access assessment refers to Section 14.12.3, while the adopted second ground calls it Table 14.12.3. The same identifier and each source label are preserved without correction.

1. The proposed development, by reason of its scale, massing, design and material finishes would constitute an unduly obtrusive and visually prominent feature at this rural location within a highly sensitive landscape character type area and would thereby seriously injure the visual amenity, character and appearance of the rural area. The proposed development would be contrary to Policy SPQHP55, Objective SPQHO84 – Table 14.9 Design Guidelines for Rural Dwellings of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029. The proposed development would be seriously injurious to the visual and rural amenities of the area and, therefore, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 10

2. The applicant has failed to accurately include the full extent of works proposed including the new right of way and existing site entrance within the redline boundary of the proposed development site. Additionally part of a shed is located within the redline boundary of the application site. Based on information submitted & site boundary outlined in red, this would preclude access to the site. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Objective SPQHO68 & Table 14.12.3 design guidelines for rural dwellings.

   Official final decision · PDF page 10, 11

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 85610e83e9a79184effd326dcb6f499c91310bcb7926d186662a6c14ec0f7429

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

1. Having regard to the documentation submitted with the application, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence to show compliance with the rural settlement strategy of the Fingal County Development Plan 2023-2029 as it relates to the South Shore Area including Objective SPQHO92 of the current Development Plan. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would contravene materially Objective SPQHO92 of the Fingal County Development Plan, would be contrary to the Ministerial Guidelines and to the over-arching national policy in the National Planning Framework. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Based on the information submitted, the size and scale of the development proposed on site and its proximity to an existing stream which flows downstream into the Rogerstown Estuary SPA (004015) it is concluded that in the absence of a Screening for Appropriate Assessment as part of the application there is a gap in the information available to the Planning Authority and it is not possible to conclude with certainty whether or not the proposed development either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, in view of best scientific knowledge and in view of the sites’ conservation objectives, would be likely to have a significant effect on any designated European Sites (in particular the Rogerstown Estuary SPA (004015)).The development as proposed, is therefore contrary to Objective DMSO1 and Objective SPQHO96 of the Fingal Development Plan, and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. Having regard to the absence of a Flood Risk Screening Assessment as required under the Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009), the proposed development would be prejudicial to public health and the amenity of the surrounding area as the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the development would not be at risk of flooding. The development, as proposed, is therefore contrary to Objectives DMSO212, DMSO215, IUO16 and Map Based Objective 23 of Appendix 8 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029, 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: ca6f27bb8fa3409a5d5da8c36687b098fdc009431d3d25abc708bf3a42281d1f

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

1. The proposed two-storey rear extension, by reason of its excessive height and overall scale, represents development which is of an inappropriate scale and insensitive design relevant to the existing dwelling, would be unnecessarily overbearing, and would set an undesirable precedent for other such developments which, both in themselves and cumulatively, would result in undue negative impacts on the amenities of the countys RS zoned lands. The proposed development would contravene Policy SPQHP41, Objective SPQHO45 & Section 14.10.2.4 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029 in this regard and, therefore, 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: e36d7dc350a7abc57f691b882c977bf87ba364a6af8c5c0f5f037d2d93afa5ce

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

1. The proposed overall development, by reason of its scale and massing represents a visually discordant and prominent feature that fails to integrate with the character of the existing dwelling or the established streetscape. It is considered that the proposal would appear as an overbearing, bulky and unsympathetic addition, resulting in significant negative impact on the visual and residential amenities of the area. The proposed development would be contrary to the RS zoning objective, be contrary to Section 14.10.2.2, Section 14.6.6.4 and would contravene Policy SPQHP41 and Objective SPQHO45 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023-2029, set an inappropriate precedent for other similar development and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 13

2. The design of the proposed two-storey extension at first floor and attic level provides an unsatisfactory degree of integration and connectivity with the existing dwelling house and would fail to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Fingal Development Plan regarding Section 14.10.2.2, Policy SPQHP41 and Objective SPQHO45 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 13

3. The proposed development, by reason of its proximity to the neighbouring dwelling to the east would seriously injure the amenities of the occupiers of this neighbouring dwelling by virtue of overlooking and visual intrusion and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 13

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 0f44d4643ae98574314d17946397b5d1bbd8049f3862076e11cfc991829ace5b

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

1. Having regard to the following; • the deficit in respect to adequate in situ road infrastructure directly serving the site, • the implementation of necessary construction and augmentation works to facilitate for appropriate access provision being outside the planning unit and not being within the remit of the applicant, Accordingly to grant the proposal in light of the aforementioned lacunae would constitute disorderly and haphazard development and therefore if permitted would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard or obstruction of wider road users and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: c3bbd2ac2b610fec07d97a2b0f17999e01d7349526fa74cbbf7af9bab4e895f9

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

1. Having regard to the following; • the deficit in respect to adequate in situ road infrastructure directly serving the site, • the implementation of necessary construction and augmentation works to facilitate for appropriate access provision being outside the planning unit and not being within the remit of the applicant. Accordingly to grant the proposal in light of the aforementioned lacunae would constitute disorderly and haphazard development and therefore if permitted would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard or obstruction of wider road users and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 37b9c6deef1462ef0127ec90ea4ac4c083d13c607afbba3e12bfa65e0a4ed886

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

1. Having regard to the information provided with the application, the lack of a satisfactory justification, the comments and observations received from the Environment Authority, and noting the proximity to the Ross Lake and Woods SAC which is downgradient from the subject site, the Planning Authority are not satisfied that the proposed development, either individually or in combination with other plans or projects, would not be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the Ross Lake and Woods SAC in view of the sites’ conservation objectives and particularly during construction and operation phase of the development. Furthermore, a number of deficiencies were identified in the submitted Natura Impact Statement, and the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the information submitted is sufficient to enable a complete assessment of the potential effects of the proposed development on the SAC. Therefore, if permitted as proposed, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposal will not adversely affect the integrity of a European site in view of its conservation objectives and would materially contravene Policy Objective NHB 2 and Policy Objective NHB 3 and DM Standard 50 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development is located along the N-59 National Road where the maximum speed limit applies. Based on the information submitted and having regard to the increased intensity of use of an existing entrance on a national road that would arise as a result of the proposed development, it is considered that if permitted as proposed, the development would interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the public road and would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard, obstruction of road users, or otherwise, and therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 9d8107470e21b183468f794ae40cb75f89e8415bf35bae5427aa9b5f800d5bf7

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

1. To permit the proposal having regard to the following: - the lack of justification for the site selection and the unconventional site boundary configuration, - the development footprint traversing natural field boundaries and obliterating a significant segment of mature linear vegetation cover, - the suburban form and excessive scale and bulk of the proposed development, would result in a built form and use that would not fit appropriately or integrate effectively into this rural setting, and would contravene materially Policy Objective RH9 and DM Standard 8 of the Galway County Development Plan. Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would interfere with the character of the landscape, would detract from the visual amenity of the area, would militate against the preservation of the rural environment, would contravene materially development objectives and a development management standard contained in Galway County Development Plan and would be contrary to the Galway Rural Design Guidelines and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Having regard to the scale, extent and location of the subject development site and absence of an archaeological impact assessment being carried out to fully assess the impact of the proposed development on the archaeology in the area namely Recorded Monument GA-056-061, it is considered that the development would materially contravene Policy Objectives ARC 4, 5 & 10 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 in relation to the protection of archaeology and therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. To permit the proposal would be premature pending the determination of Strategic Infrastructure Development (PA07.319307) and would have further potential to contravene SPPR 2 of the Draft Wind Energy Development Guidelines (2019) with respect to the requisite set back distances from wind turbine infrastructure 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: 28090dda6a3de20f892b17dff1c51973b50220fb790b413c1a49ac88e7cb2680

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

1. Based on the information submitted, it is considered by the Planning Authority that the proposed structure to be retained as a Granny Flat, by virtue of the overall scale, design, nature and in the absence of sufficient supporting documentation to justify the need for the granny flat fails to comply with DM Standard 5: Dependant Relative Accommodation/ Granny Flats (Urban and Rural) of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028. Furthermore, the floor area to be retained significantly exceeds the threshold permitted under DM standard 5. Accordingly, to grant the development as proposed would set an undesirable precedent for similar future development in the area therefore would be contrary to the principles of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 0e7fcec785c9511e9039c9729584382ba0c3c2b92dee3d4e35c1f4429e428b96

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

1. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the structure subject to this retention application constitutes a bona fide shed structure ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwelling house on site. Having regard to the scale, design and layout of the structure, the submitted plans and observations made during the site inspection, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the structure is used solely for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling. The Planning Authority notes that the structure contains characteristics not ordinarily associated with a domestic storage shed, including extensive internal partitioning, domestic-style fittings, servicing infrastructure and facilities associated with recreational and habitable use. Accordingly, the proposed development fails to demonstrate compliance with Development Management Standard 6: Domestic Garages (Urban and Rural) of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Development Management Standard 38: Effluent Treatment Plants of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 requires that the suitability of a site for the treatment of wastewater be demonstrated in accordance with the Environmental Protection Agency Wastewater Treatment Manuals and that adequate wastewater treatment facilities are available to serve the development. The application form indicates that the retained structure is served by an existing Proprietary P10 Effluent Treatment System with associated percolation area. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the wastewater treatment system serving the retained structure has the benefit of planning permission or that the suitability and capacity of the treatment system to accommodate the retained development have been satisfactorily demonstrated. Accordingly, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the proposed development would not be prejudicial to public health and therefore considers the proposal to be contrary to Development Management Standard 38 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. In the absence of satisfactory documentary evidence from the provider of a suitable water supply to the subject site in accordance with DM Standards 36 and 37, and the details as contained in the application form, the Planning Authority consider that the proposed development would be contrary to the aforementioned provisions of the Galway County Galway Development Plan 2022- 2028, would be prejudicial to the health of those persons using the structure, and would thereby be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: b0431d74f35bf3fbb773229ee42006024b14003c12915bbf5026af6f17eda54b

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

1. The applicant has failed to satisfactorily address the concerns raised by the Planning Authority in relation to the design, scale and massing of the proposed dwelling and garage/private store. By reason of its overall bulk, scale, visual complexity and proliferation of architectural features, the proposed dwelling would appear visually obtrusive and would not assimilate satisfactorily into the rural landscape. Furthermore, the proposed garage/private store, by reason of its size, scale and visual presence, is not considered subordinate to the proposed dwelling. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy Objective RH 9, DM Standard 1 (Qualitative Assessment Design Quality), DM Standard 6 (Domestic Garages), DM Standard 8 (Design and Layout of New Dwellings in Rural Areas) and Appendix V of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposed development would detract from the visual amenity and rural character of the area 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: cc573b72d7330acb5f4e97cdf3354df2ad7240db1b1b8fadbc59aa090cc09dec

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

1. It is considered that the proposed development would constitute over-development of this confined site by reason of excessive site coverage, lack of adequate private open space and inadequate provision of car parking and would result in substandard residential development which would seriously injure the residential amenities of property within the proposed development and in the vicinity of the site. It is considered, therefore, that the proposed development does meet the Development Management Standards of Volume 6 in the County Development Plan 2022- 2028 and would set a negative precedent for similar substandard development. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. On the basis of the information submitted, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not endanger public safety, pose a traffic hazard or otherwise. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 1f790e232c01c73a01f7359d3e74f8fe0d9940e4b63a621b859f57443c87724d

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

1. Having regard to the location of the development with direct access onto the N70 National Secondary Road at a location where the speed limit of 80km/h applies, it is considered that the proposed development, by itself or by the precedent it would set for other development, would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and obstruction of road users because of the additional traffic turning movements the development would generate on this National Secondary Road. The proposed development would contravene national policy in relation to the control of development on national roads as set out in the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities issue by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in January 2012, which seeks to secure the efficiency, capacity and safety of the national road network and would contravene materially Objectives KCDP 14-29 and KCDP 14-30 of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022- 2028. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 8b3948c70d54f948087a47d06d26549c114813926fe3f5aeb6a49e00aab4dc14

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

1. Having regard to: (a) The inadequate and substandard communal open space which is enclosed by existing structures/high wall. (b) The location of bicycle parking. (c) The location of bin storage concentrated in immediate proximity to a single residential unit, which would seriously injure residential amenities and would give rise to an inappropriate level of quality of living to future occupants. (d) The design and orientation of the balcony element associated with first-floor Unit No. 3 which would result in overlooking of the rear garden space of the property located to the north, it is considered therefore, that the proposed development would be contrary to Chapter 3 Housing including (Policy HO P16) and Chapter 15 Development Management Standards with particular reference to open space provision, and if permitted would result in a substandard development, lacking in quality open space, would seriously injure the amenities of both the proposed and existing dwellings, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. Objective AH O59 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023–2029 (as varied) only allows for changes to be permitted to vernacular structures that are sympathetic to their special features and character and respect the setting, form, scale and materials. Furthermore, Policy AAH 1 of the Sallins Local Area Plan 2016–2022, seeks to resist the demolition of vernacular architecture of historical, cultural, and aesthetic merit that contributes positively to the character and quality of the local streetscape. The proposed additions to the subject vernacular structure including the removal of its eaves, chimney breasts, and the incongruous addition of a bulky flat roofed two-storey extension which dominates the rear elevation of this historic terrace building, at a location that is visible from the historic marketplace and from the canal (south), is contrary to both the Kildare County Development Plan 2023–2029 (as varied) Objective AH O59 and Sallins Local Area Plan 2016–2022 Policy AAH 1, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. Based on the information submitted with the application, it has not been demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, that surface water can be dealt with adequately within the curtilage of the site and would not adversely impact surface water drainage in the area, or that the proposed development has adequately considered pluvial flood risk within the site, especially having regard to differences in rain garden proposals between drawings. In the absence of further information, the proposal would be prejudicial to the orderly development of the site and to public health and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Note to Applicant/Developer Having regard to the inaccurate Roof Plan in Dwg No. CT/PLN-004, the difference in dimensions between the rainwater garden in the Ground Floor Plan in Dwg No. CT/PLN-004 and in the Site Layout Plan in Dwg No. CT/PLN-002A and the lack of any spot levels of contours on the subject site insufficient information has been provided to ensure that the development would be built in accordance with any permission, therefore effective control cannot be maintained if permission were to be granted.

   Official final decision · PDF page 4

Local extraction verified against a checked notice format. Document SHA-256: 3e1e7bff191bace28fdb5f69eceb7a866e29bfb1bf8c28fdb1384cb9d6857435

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

1. “The development site is within the confines of the Clonaslee Architectural Conservation Area as outlined in Appendix 2 of the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027. In the absence of a detailed Architectural Impact Assessment of the proposed development which involves substantial demolition works and the creation of a backland residential element accessed through a laneway from the street frontage, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not adversely affect Clonaslee Architectural Conservation Area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and development of the area.”

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: dc96333bf65ccb893dff3a4b639284a8e938138b8ba7343d486401c6ef2bcc9b

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

1. The balcony proposed to be enclosed represent the private amenity space allocated to this dwelling as part of the original permission for the estate. Their enclosure would remove the functional private open space for the unit, would materially detract from the amenities of existing and future occupants, and would set a significant and undesirable precedent for similar balcony enclosures throughout the estate. Such a precedent would erode the architectural coherence, visual amenity and residential character of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Objective HO O3 of the Limerick Development Plan 2022-2028, which seeks to protect existing residential amenity and the established character of residential areas.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The proposed development would give rise to an unacceptable fire safety hazard. The arrangement fails to comply with Section 1.9.11 of Technical Guidance Document B (2024), which expressly prohibits the positioning of refuse storage chamber access adjoining escape routes, final exits or windows serving flats. No suitable alternative location exists within the applicant’s curtilage that would avoid reproducing the same risk. The proposed development would therefore endanger public safety and 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: 1c70cb2ef17d80da6539a7790bc10667388e9e85661b846a5580e3ad5a27d2c6