Refusal decisions · 7–13 Sep 2026

1. Having regard to evidence of mottling in the main trial hole at a depth of 300mm below ground level and evidence of shallow bedrock in the immediate area, as well as evidence of seasonal flooding close to the site of the proposed development and in conjunction with the extent of information provided, it has not been demonstrated that the site is capable of safely attenuating and disposing of wastewater in compliance with the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A) Code of Practice 2021 for Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems (Population Equivalent ≤ 10). The proposed development would therefore be injurious to public health and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The proposed development, by reason of its siting in an open and exposed site, and its contextually inappropriate design, including architectural features which are not consistent with the prevailing rural architectural language, would result in a development which is incompatible with the site and which would fail to satisfactorily assimilate into the landscape at this location. The development, if permitted, would result in a visually obtrusive feature in the landscape, would fail to accord with the provisions of Section 12.7 (Rural Design Considerations) of the Roscommon County Development Plan 2022-2028 and the siting and design principles set out in the accompanying County Roscommon Rural Design Guidelines. The proposed development would accordingly be injurious to the visual amenities of the area and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development.
3. The proposed development site is in proximity to the zone of archaeological potential established around Recorded Monuments RO017-044001- (Ringfort – cashel) and RO017-044002- (Children's burial ground) which are subject to statutory protection in the Record of Monuments and Places, established under Section 12 of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994. In the absence of the undertaking of archaeological testing and evidence of the outcome of same as required by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development is consistent with the provisions of Roscommon County Development Plan 2022-2028 (Volume 1) Policy Objective BH 9.13, which seeks to “secure the preservation (i.e. preservation in situ or, as a minimum, preservation by record) of all archaeological monuments included in the Record of Monuments and Places.” The proposed development would accordingly be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The proposed development, by reason of its siting in a domestic plot, in conjunction with its scale, massing and design features would result in a development which is not appropriate to its proposed residential setting in a rural area. The development would result in a visually obtrusive feature which would fail to integrate into the landscape and would be of discordant design relative to developments in the immediate vicinity of the site. The subject development, if permitted to be retained and completed, would be injurious to the residential amenity of properties in the vicinity and would set an undesirable precedent for other similarly inappropriate development. The proposed development would accordingly be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. Having regard to the restricted nature of the site and the design solution required to treat and dispose of wastewater associated with the entirety of the development within the identified planning unit, it has not been demonstrated that the site can attenuate and dispose of waste water safely and in accordance with the EPA 2021 Code of Practice: Domestic Wastewater Treatment Systems (Population Equivalent < 10) and the EPA Wastewater Treatment Manuals for Small Communities, Business, Leisure Centres and Hotels. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The proposed development by reason of its design and layout, which has not made adequate provision for minimum floor areas and standards and for adequate private open space, would constitute overdevelopment, would not provide a high quality residential environment and would impact unduly on the residential amenity of existing and future residents if permitted to be retained in its current form. The proposed development as it exists, would therefore be contrary to the provisions of Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments Guidelines for Planning Authorities, (DHLGH; 2025) and would accordingly be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. The proposed development by reason of the nature and intensity of the proposed use and in the absence of demonstration of adequate provision and/or arrangements for onsite vehicular access and parking would create undue potential for hazardous or conflicting turning movements and unmanaged, casual or illegal car parking in the immediate vicinity of the site. On the basis of the proposals presented, it is considered that the subject development has the potential to endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users or otherwise. The proposed development would accordingly be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.