Refusal decisions · 24 August–30 August 2026

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

1. The applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the retained surface water drainage system has been adequately designed and complies with Policy Objective IU 19 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021- 2027, as varied, which requires that all development proposals shall be accompanied by a comprehensive SuDS assessment including run-off quantity, run-off quality and impacts on habitat and water quality. The Drainage report has indicated that the existing outdoor beer gardens and pergolas/lightweight roof structures subject to retention permission have been constructed over existing long standing impermeable concrete hardstanding areas however it is clear from their google maps that this assertion is incorrect. The applicant’s own drainage report prepared by Hydrocare Environmental Ltd has stated that surface water from Beer Garden 2 is allowed to flow directly from the site and is collected in road gullies outside the subject site. This is contrary to Policy objective IU 19 which requires applicants to carry out soil permeability tests to design for soakaways to ensure surface water drainage can be managed on site and that it is captured as close to source as possible with subsequent slow release to the drainage system and surface water network. Accordingly to permit the retention of the beer garden and related structures in the absence of appropriate SuDS measures would be contrary to policy objective IU 19 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would set an undesirable precedent for other similar styled developments.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 05189a7dd45826ba689d9804ec2aa594035e3f768735363680c6977c7f895f96

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

1. The proposed dwelling and garage, by reason of its siting and the site’s location in an area which has an excessive density and inappropriate suburban pattern of development, including ribbon development, would result in the extension of ribbon development. As such, the proposed development would militate against the preservation of the rural environment and would set an undesirable precedent for other similar inappropriate development in the vicinity. Accordingly, the development is considered to be contrary to Sections 13.9.4 (Site Selection,) 13.9.5 (Ribbon Development) and Policy Objective HOU 49 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027, as varied, and would, if permitted, be contrary to the property planning and sustainable development of the rural area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 29eb9b77c0005f848201565055a481572b84252b6acd294c355205cec8a36140

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

1. The proposed development is located within Rural Policy Zone 1 as designated by the Louth County Development Plan 2021 -2027 (as varied). This location is an area under strong urban influence and of significant landscape value. Policy HOU 43 of the Plan seeks to manage the development of rural housing in the open countryside by requiring applicants to demonstrate compliance with the Qualifying Criteria relative to Rural Policy Zone 1 set out in Table 3.4. Based on the information submitted, the planning authority is not satisfied that the applicant comes under the scope of the qualifying criteria for residential development in Rural Policy Zone 1 and as such, the proposed development would contravene the rural housing policy of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027 (as varied) and thus would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development is at a location within an area characterised by a proliferation of one-off rural dwellings. In order to facilitate this dwelling, this proposal would require the extensive removal of an established roadside boundary hedgerow to accommodate the development. This site is also located on a level higher than the adjacent public road and has no substantial screening or backdrop on its rear and southern side boundary. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy objective HOU 44 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027 (as varied) which seeks to manage development of rural housing in the open countryside by requiring any new dwelling to be ‘appropriately designed and located so it integrates into the local landscape and does not negatively impact or erode the rural character of the area in which it would be located, Policy Objective HOU 49 which requires applications for one-off rural housing to comply with the standards and criteria set out in Section 13.9 of Chapter 13 ‘Development Management Guidelines’, Policy Objective ENV 39 which seeks to protect and preserve existing hedgerows particularly species rich roadside and townland boundary hedgerows and Policy Objective NBG 37 which seeks to protect the unspoiled rural landscape of the Areas of High Scenic Quality. Such development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of this area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The proposed development is located within a holding where a substantial number of dwellings have been constructed. It is Policy Objective HOU 48 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021 – 2027 (as varied) to restrict residential development on a landholding, where there is a history of development through the speculative sale or development of sites, notwithstanding the applicant’s compliance with the local need criteria. Considering the substantial number of dwellings that have been developed within these lands, it is considered that the proposed development is contrary to Policy Objective HOU 48 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021 – 2027 (as varied) and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ebc33b80ef264c03dfe2986ab23ab1a2bb576202711d00a8533a4ab8546e87dd

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

1. The subject shop front fascia signage including its proportions, design and material finish results in an overtly dominant advertising feature in this Architectural Conservation Area. The additional projecting signage and two projecting lights at the front façade of the premises results in visual clutter and along with the fascia signage has an adverse impact on the visual amenities of this streetscape and the Ardee Architectural Conservation Area. To grant permission for the retention of these works would be detrimental to the visual amenities of Market Street and would be contrary to policy objective BHC 31 of the Louth County Development Plan 2021-2027, as varied, which seeks to require that all development proposals within or affecting an Architectural Conservation Area preserve or enhance the character and appearance of that area, protect architectural features of special interest and ensure that the design respects the character of the historic architecture in terms of height, scale, layout and materials, would set an undesirable precedent for further such development 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: 876781f363089761a35a7270b3a6e439e07818ba887c776db0ed497a772f61e8

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 and inappropriate form of development that would seriously injure the residential amenities of future occupants by reason of the deficiencies in the quantity and quality of private amenity space and the overall inadequate levels of parking, and would contravene the provisions of the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlement, Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The proposed development, by virtue of its design and layout would result in the overlooking of adjacent properties, which would seriously injure the residential amenity of the properties in question, and would depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would set an undesirable precedent for further such development. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The proposed development would contravene materially a condition attached to an existing permission for development, namely condition 1 attached to planning reference 25/60145, by encroaching onto an area indicated as private open space in the plans submitted under that permission. The proposed development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 0fd04d34ce659dd90f3f8471ddf4557cfa8ad490949a282e6d626543df50f3d3

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

1. The site frontage (bollarded, as per site layout plan), remaining active to passing traffic and trade, with certain stopping / parking on the public road and/or footpath due to lack of adequate yard size for the nature of the proposed activities; will give rise to obstructions to and conflict with passing vehicular traffic and vulnerable road users / school children, resulting in compromised road safety, the management of which remains beyond the scope of the development proposals and capabilities of the development control authority.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The site location, on the inside of a bend in the R375 is resulting in poor sight visibility on the R375. The proposed reduction in height of adjacent walls (technically bespoke to the location and limited exactly on the required distances for 50kph speed), relies upon no obstruction to visibility occurring within the visibility triangles; and, for the nature of the proposed activities, at the proposed location, renders ongoing compromised or unreliable road safety standards resulting from the proposed development. The development is therefore contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The proposed development would facilitate the operation and intensification of an unauthorised structure and would, therefore, seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity by reason of traffic movements, noise and general disturbance and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Accordingly, it is considered that it would be inappropriate to consider the grant of a permission for the proposed development in such circumstances

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 8a8e3eb9201c64d3828a3b535002f6e800d1f937f102a7c0adec2006f9c3850c

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

Source note: Grounds 2–4 of the council’s 4 grounds are reproduced in full. Ground 1 is withheld because it contains private ownership and family accommodation information. Original numbering is retained.

2. It is a policy (RD POL 9) of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, “To require all applications for rural houses to comply with the ‘Meath Rural House Design Guide”. The proposed development by reason of its size, scale and massing is considered would be out of keeping with the site context and fails to integrate with the character of the immediate surrounding rural area and would form a visually obtrusive feature, which would not respect and integrate with the surrounding landscape. Accordingly, to permit the proposed development would materially contravene the aforementioned policy provisions of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and thereby contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

3. The application site is identified as being located, either in whole or in part, within Flood Zones A and B, which are areas at high and moderate risk of fluvial flooding. The applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate, by way of an appropriate Site-Specific Flood Risk Assessment and, where required, the application of the Justification Test, that the proposed development would not be at risk of flooding or would not increase flood risk elsewhere. Furthermore, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that a safe means of access to the proposed dwelling can be achieved, having regard to the flood risk affecting the site and its access arrangements. The Planning Authority also considers that the proposal is contrary to Policy INF POL 20 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, which seeks to ensure that developments are appropriately assessed having regard to the nature and scale of flood risk and the potential impacts of climate change. In the absence of sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with these requirements, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development constitutes an appropriate form of development at this location. Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009), Policy INF POL 20 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

4. The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed site access has been designed to provide adequate sightlines and safe vehicular ingress and egress. Having regard to the layout and positioning of the proposed entrance piers, walls and gates, the applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the required visibility splays can be achieved and maintained in the interests of road safety. In the absence of sufficient information demonstrating that the proposed entrance arrangement can provide safe access to and from the public road, the Planning Authority considers that the development would give rise to a traffic hazard and endanger public safety. Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to the road safety provisions of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3, 4

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: b3577e05941786e9d8e9e85f25bb66f92aff883645c856de3cac815963832921

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

1. Having regard to the pattern of development in the area and the scale of development proposed, it is considered that the proposed extension, by reason of its scale, bulk and proximity to site boundaries, would seriously injure the residential amenities of adjoining properties and would be contrary to DM OBJ 50 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021 -2027 by reason of visual obtrusion and overbearance. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 2b986dcdef07215bf915c03c29959fd24f7d762740627907c22780e12d304ecb

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

1. It is considered that the proposed development by virtue of its nature as a light industrial use proposed to be located in the rural area which is zoned RA ‘Rural Area’ in the Meath County Development Plan, would materially contravene the zoning objective for RA to ‘protect and promote in a balanced way, the development of agriculture, forestry and sustainable rural- related enterprise, community facilities, biodiversity, the rural landscape, and the built and cultural heritage.’ Light Industry is not listed as a permitted use nor a use open for consideration under the RA Zoning Objective. The proposed development would therefore materially contravene a zoning objective outlined in the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and would set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments, which would in themselves and cumulatively, not be in the interest of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The subject site is partially located within the Blackwater Valley Landscape Character Area as defined under the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, which is categorised as being of Very High Value and having a High Sensitivity to development. It is a policy of the Development Plan to “integrate in the development management process the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and landscape features wherever possible, by minimising adverse impacts on existing habitats (whether designated or not) and by including mitigation and/or compensation measures, as appropriate”. The proposed construction of an additional ‘light industrial’ building on the subject site, located in a rural area, has the potential to negatively impact upon the landscape character of the Blackwater Valley (HER POL 28).

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: b89b79da66f04c25a5c18ddf6571b9173efbb17a222460847314a4e4b6b510ca

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

1. The proposed development would give rise to an excessive density of development in a rural area lacking certain public services and community facilitates and would establish an undesirable precedent for further development of this type. In addition, the proposed development would be contrary to the policies and objectives of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, which seeks to provide more sustainable formats of development within the rural area, through supporting the vitality of lower order centres and existing local community facilities including policies /objectives RD POL 4, RUR DEV SO 5, CS OBJ 1 and RD OBJ 1. The development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. Having regard to the nature of the development of a dwelling in a Strong Rural Area at a location where there has been a significant amount of development of one-off rural dwellings, the Planning Authority, in assessing such applications, is required to have regard to the following policy provisions of Section 9.5.1 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027: The Planning Authority will also take into account the following matters in assessing individual proposals for one-off rural housing…. a. Local circumstances such as the degree to which the surrounding area has been developed and is trending towards becoming overdeveloped; b. The degree of existing development on the original landholding from which the site is taken including the extent to which previously permitted rural housing has been retained in family occupancy. Where there is a history of individual residential development on the landholding through the speculative sale of sites, permission may be refused; It is considered that the proposed development, if permitted, would result in the immediate rural area becoming further overdeveloped and would represent an unacceptable quantum of development taking place on the original landholding. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development would materially contravene the above criteria of the Meath County Development Plan, would depreciate the value of the adjoining properties, would set an undesirable precedent for future development in the area 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: 4b1f8ae5b18972acb31420373301ee3621cb7a24d01cd4208e5d0ca8680843fc

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

1. The site of the proposed development is not suitable for the safe disposal of effluent in accordance with the 2021 EPA Code of Practice: Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems (P.E≤ 10) having regard to previous and current indicators of high water table conditions and/or poor percolation characteristics on site, as observed during site inspections, and, the minimum unsaturated soil/subsoil depth that can be achieved, as set out in Table 6.3 of the said EPA Code of Practice (2021). It is therefore considered that the proposed development, if permitted, would therefore be prejudicial to public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 1

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: ab3101f572ee905429454a882cae5d916c0ece54587dbfb5ef8e4c0873cc0c68

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

1. The site is zoned Existing Residential under the Waterford City & County Development Plan 2022–2028, within which agricultural machinery storage / light industry use is not a permitted use. The proposed development would further intensify and consolidate an incompatible use on residentially zoned lands, would be contrary to the zoning objective to provide for residential development and protect and improve residential amenity, and would therefore materially contravene the policy and objectives of the Waterford City & County Development Plan 2022–2028 and would thus be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

2. The proposed development would further intensify an agricultural machinery storage and maintenance use within an established residential area and consolidate unauthorized development at the site. Having regard to the scale of the proposed building and the associated machinery storage, movements and activity, the development would adversely affect residential amenity and would perpetuate an incompatible land-use pattern, and thus would detract from existing residential amenities 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: 9c3ae9a72aef9ebdd1f2f29e02e9354ccf2f5e9922d8a1dead8d2366ddf4aa4d

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

1. Taking cognisance of the surface water management details provided to the Planning Authority by way of further information which amend the surface water management proposals and provide a hydrological link to the Lower River Suir Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and in the absence of a Natura Impact Statement (NIS), the Planning Authority considers that the developer has failed to demonstrate that the proposal will not have potential for adverse impacts on the integrity of the Lower River Suir Special Area of Conservation (SAC) by not supporting the application with a Natura Impact Statement detailing the impacts of the proposed development on the qualifying interest habitats and species of the Special Area of Conservation (SAC). Therefore, it has not been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the proposed development would not, either individually or in combination with other projects, give rise to potential for significant effects on the conservation objectives of the qualifying interest habitats and species of the Lower River Suir SAC. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: be819ad3d5b3a5355dadda08582e8bc122cb35e5ce4c75ce05418d403a8a3e40

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

1. The existing dwelling, although currently derelict, is considered to be of vernacular merit. The proposed extension, by virtue of its scale, height, massing, form and overall bulk, is considered disproportionate to the existing one-and-a-half-storey vernacular dwelling. It would visually dominate and effectively subsume the original structure, diminishing its architectural character and integrity and adversely affecting its contribution to the rural landscape. The proposal fails to respect the scale, proportions and traditional form of the host dwelling and would not assimilate satisfactorily with it and would be contrary to Policy Objective CPO 9.25 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and to the proposed planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: f58f10f7c316f69488c44d4c693204ac8057838e38e679c30aeb20756b812883

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

1. Rural Housing Need Policy The subject site is located in a rural area outside any designated settlement and in an area under strong urban influence where development which is not rural generated should be more properly located in towns and villages and designated settlements. On the basis of the documentation submitted, and in the absence of satisfactory justification to the contrary, it is considered that the applicant does not come within the scope of the criteria for rural housing at this location. To permit the development as proposed would contravene Councils policy objective CPO 9.1 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021-2027 and would be contrary to the Sustainable Rural Housing - Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2005. The proposed development is considered to be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Siting, Scale and Design The proposed dwelling is positioned set back from the public road and does not align with the established pattern of rural housing in Higginstown, where dwellings are generally clustered along the roadside. The siting therefore represents an isolated form of backland development and fails to comply with CPO 9.14 and the siting principles under CPO 16.32. More appropriate locations appear to exist within the wider landholding, including sites closer to existing dwellings. The development would therefore fail to integrate with the rural landscape character and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. Appropriate Assessment Screening Report Having regard to the nature and scale of the proposed development, the location of the site within an area of high groundwater vulnerability, its hydrological connectivity to the River Brosna and the potential for a downstream pathway to the Split Hills and Long Hill Esker SAC, it is considered that the proposed development has the potential to give rise to impacts on a European site, including through effects on water quality and the receiving aquatic environment. In the absence of sufficient information and mitigation measures to demonstrate that the proposed development would not adversely affect the integrity of the European site, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied, on the basis of the information submitted, that the development would not result in significant effects on the conservation objectives of the Split Hills and Long Hill Esker SAC. Accordingly, having regard to the requirements of the EU Habitats Directive and to Policies CPO 12.4 and CPO 12.8 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021– 2027, it is considered that the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would be likely to adversely affect the integrity of a European site. The proposed development is therefore considered unacceptable and planning permission is refused.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

4. Ecological Impact Assessment Having regard to the nature and siting of the development proposed, the presence of locally important broadleaved woodland adjoining the site, the potential ecological corridor linkages to Cloncrow Bog NHA, and the sensitivity of the receiving environment as identified in submissions, and in the absence of an Ecological Impact Assessment to assess potential impacts on protected habitats, Annex IV species, ecological corridors and locally important biodiversity sites, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not give rise to significant adverse ecological effects. To permit the development as proposed would therefore be contrary to CPO 12.8 of the Westmeath County Development Plan 2021–2027 and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2, 3

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: 9b0af2eaae2c62d05af7e44d4c80c7ed36aba8b363cde28aa49fdbde7e8a18a4

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

1. The application site is located within the designated Coastal Landscape in Volume 7 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and is therefore classed as highly sensitive. It is considered that the proposed height and design of the extension does not consider or take into account sufficiently the sensitive nature of the site. The proposed development would likely result in a significant and detrimental impact on the visual amenities and character of this coastal area and would set an inappropriate and undesirable precedent for further development of this scale within the coastal landscape and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Insufficient information has been received regarding the suitability of the existing dwelling to accommodate the proposed extension and as such 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: 3e86b20fb197e8f47701b3741f81e4f17b120b220313a889b51b3ef3c3e25cb3

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

1. The existing cabin style dwelling, by reason of its design and materials of construction, would be prejudicial to public health and would be seriously injurious to the amenities of the area. The development would be at variance with Objective CPO6.29 of the Wicklow County Development Plan2022-2028 as the dwelling is considered to represent a haphazard and substandard form of permanent residential accommodation. Such a development would establish an undesirable precedence for similar sub-standard forms of residential development in the area, would be contrary to visual amenities of the area, to County Development Plan policy and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. The development for retention results in the existing wastewater treatment system on site serving the subject residential unit and the existing main dwelling on site. No information has been submitted with regard to the existing wastewater treatment system on site and CPO 13.17 of the County Development Plan states that private wastewater treatment plants for multi-house developments will not be permitted. The proposed development for retention would therefore be contrary to the objectives of the Wicklow County Development Plan and would be prejudicial to public health.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

3. The Council’s settlement strategy is to require new housing to locate on designated housing land within the boundaries of settlements, and to restrict rural housing to those with a housing need based on the core consideration of demonstrable functional social or economic need to live in the open countryside in accordance with the requirements set out in Table 6.3 of the Wicklow County Development Plan 2022 -2028. Insufficient information has been submitted to show that the applicant comes within the scope of the housing need criteria as set out under Objective CPO 6.41 of the Wicklow County Development Plan 2022 -2028 as they have not demonstrated a bona fide need for a new dwelling in the open countryside in accordance with the requirements set out in Table 6.3. The proliferation of nonessential housing in rural landscape areas erodes the landscape value of these areas and seriously detracts from views of special amenity value. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

4. Having regard to: a) The layout of the vehicular entrance on site; b) Its location on the inside of a bend in the road; c) The proposed development which would result in two dwellings using this entrance and the additional traffic movements generated by the same and, d) The failure of the applicant to demonstrated that there are adequate sightlines available at this entrance; It is considered that the proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of serious traffic hazard 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: 2432d668db18031458744fa9fbaf3c0700dedf034265f6e1d8f2e79b7a608fa1

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

1. Having regard to the location of the existing dwelling within Tinahely (a type 1 small town) within a rent pressure zone, and Wicklow County Development Plan Policy Objective CPO 6.33 which seeks to ensure that any proposals do not undermine the provision of housing and that there is a sufficient supply of rental properties available for longer-term rental in the area and to ensure that proposals do not put increased pressure on the housing market, and the need / lack of rental properties in Tinahely, it is considered that the proposed development, by itself and by the precedent for which a grant of permission would set, would be contrary to the provisions of the Wicklow County Development Plan 2022-2028, would result in the loss of long term residential stock within Tinahely Town Centre and within a rent pressure zone, would be in conflict with national policy, 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: 708494f34c1ffd63861edbf2893005e03b1516a37eff68207491e961af3fe1c5

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

1. Having regard to the applicant's failure to submit a revised Social Infrastructure Audit and to satisfactorily demonstrate that adequate childcare facilities will be available to serve the proposed development and the wider permitted development on the site, it is considered that the proposed development consisting of the provision of four dwellings and associated works on a site reserved for the provision of a creche would result in the unacceptable loss of social infrastructure for a residential area and would be contrary to objectives CPO 7.28 and CPO 7.29 of the Wicklow County Development Plan 2022-2028 and Objective WTR6 of the Wicklow Town-Rathnew Local Area 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: c1bdfa8b0dbc6f43b2e1dbb6707a4b14a53b44b0ec9214a8f7b044d5d92cbaad

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

1. Having regard to the layout of the development, in particular the distance of the open sky area to the nearest fire exit, and the lack of assessment in respect to travel distance from this area, and the potential need for an external fire escape, in the absence of information to address the issue of fire escape from this area the development would be prejudicial to public health

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: c8ac1f3242767c6f5b7d0221c857d98c7ddecc83ec50ba36d11172027090eaba

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

1. The proposed mobile home, by reason of its design and construction, would be prejudicial to public health and would be seriously injurious to the amenities of the area. The development would be contrary to the established housing standards of the Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government that deems such accommodation as being unfit for permanent human occupation. Such a development would establish an undesirable precedence for similar sub-standard forms of residential development in the area, would be contrary to visual amenities of the area, to County Development Plan policy and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

2. Having regard to i. the limited details submitted. ii. Objective CPO 6.41 which restricts rural development in the countryside to those with a housing need based on the core consideration of demonstrable functional social or economic need. iii. Objective CPO 6.24 To facilitate family / granny flat extensions for use by a member of the immediate family subject to protection of existing residential amenity and compliance with the criteria set out in the Development and Design Standards (Appendix 1). It is considered that insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the applicant would come within the provisions of Objective CPO 6.41, and neither would the proposal comply with the requirements for independent units as set out in the County Development Plan 2022-2028. To allow this development would therefore undermine the rural settlement strategy, would set an undesirable precedent for similar haphazard development, would be contrary to the provisions of the County Development Plan, and proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

   Official final decision · PDF page 2

PDF pages visually checked. Document SHA-256: bf61c960852c862beb91f2fb69ad81210d76256e8b7ede619b7cf0cd6da1ea7c