Refusal decisions · 12–18 Oct 2026

1. The proposed development would contravene Condition 4 of the parent permission, Planning Ref. 89/121, granted for the domestic garage. Condition 4 states ‘The proposed development shall not be used for human habitation or for any other purpose other than a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such’. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. y!
2. It is considered that Unit A of the proposed development does not meet the minimum design standards nl relating to residential amenity. The proposed floor space is below the minimum threshold of 32 sqm for a studio, as noted in SPPR 2 of the Design Standards for Apartments, Guidelines for Planning Authorities, O 2025. The proposal would unduly impact on the residential amenity of the adjoining property through loss of daylight and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of s the area. se
3. The proposal provides 3.no north facing windows which would overlook on to the neighbouring property. po The applicant has failed to submit details regarding the boundary treatment between both properties. In the absence of these details, it is considered the proposal would negatively impact the residential amenity r Pu of the dwelling to the north. g in w ie -V il nc ou C y nt ou C th ea M

1. Having regard to the location of the proposed development within the core of Brú na Bóinne UNESCO World Heritage Site and the proximity of the site to Newgrange Passage Tomb, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not adversely impact the World Heritage Site. The applicant has failed to demonstrate, through a comprehensive archaeological assessment, that the site can accommodate the proposed development without y! adversely impacting archaeological heritage. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy HER POL 3, which requires archaeological assessment and investigation for development in nl areas of archaeological potential, and HER OBJ 2 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021– O 2027, which seeks to ensure that development in the vicinity of Recorded Monuments and Zones of Archaeological Potential is sited and designed in a manner that minimises impact on the monument s and its setting. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and se sustainable development of the area. po
2. The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that the development would not have a detrimental impact upon the integrity of the sensitive landscape and protected views within the Brú na Bóinne r Pu UNESCO World Heritage Site. The submitted Archaeological and Visual Impact Assessment fails to adequately assess the landscape and visual effects of the proposed development. The assessment methodology, based on visibility testing using a flagpole from selected viewpoints, is not considered g sufficient to evaluate the likely visual impact of a substantial agricultural structure within the sensitive in landscape setting of the Brú na Bóinne World Heritage Site. The proposed structure, by reason of its w scale, height and isolated location from within the established farmyard complex, would constitute ie an inappropriate form of development that would encroach upon protected viewpoints 87b and 87d and overall sensitive heritage landscape. -V In the absence of a comprehensive Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment prepared by a suitably qualified professional, whilst having regard to Appendix 5 of the Meath County Development Plan il nc 2021–2027 and the principles of the Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (GLVIA3), the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposal would protect the sensitive core ou landscape of the Brú na Bóinne. The proposal is therefore contrary to HER POL 7, HER OBJ 50, and the provisions of Appendix 8(a) UNESCO World Heritage Site Planning Guidance and Supporting C Information of the Meath County Development Plan 2021–2027 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. y nt ou C th ea M

The applicant has failed to satisfactorily address Item 1 of the Further Information request, including demonstrating compliance with Condition No. 4 of Planning Reference TA171167 requiring the demolition of the former dwelling following occupation of the replacement dwelling. The proposed development would therefore contravene a condition attached to an existing permission for development. Furthermore, the applicant has also failed to adequately justify the need for a second site entrance serving the stables building or demonstrate why the previously approved access arrangement cannot serve the y! development. The Planning Authority is therefore not satisfied that the proposal represents the orderly nl and coherent development of the site, and the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. O s se r po Pu g in w ie -V il nc ou C y nt ou C th ea M

The proposed development, if permitted, would constitute an intensification of an access onto the R154 Regional Road, a route subject to a 100 km/h speed limit, carrying significant volumes of traffic, and would thereby give rise to conditions that could adversely affect road safety and the efficient operation of the public road network. Furthermore, the provision and intensification of a separate access serving lands within a wider landholding would result in an undesirable proliferation of entrances onto a strategic transportation corridor, contrary to the y! RD POL 38 and 39 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027, and the principles of nl access management and road safety. In addition, the proposed use of the access by agricultural and heavy goods vehicles associated O with the grain storage and drying facility would be prejudicial to the coordinated and orderly development of adjoining lands zoned E1-High Technology Uses and E2-General Enterprise s and Employment. The nature of the proposed traffic movements would undermine the se development potential of these lands for their intended high technology and employment- generating purposes. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper po planning and sustainable development of the area and would conflict with the transport and land-use objectives of the Meath County Development Plan 2021–2027. r Pu g in w ie -V il nc ou C y nt ou C th ea M