Refusal decisions · 19–25 Oct 2026

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Reasons under review. View the official case.

1. Having regard to the orientation and proximity of the development proposed to be retained and an completed to the adjacent residential dwelling, and to the prevailing pattern of development in the area, Pl characterised by dwellings set back from the public road, it is considered that the development proposed il, to be retained and completed would seriously injure the amenities of residential property in the vicinity nc of the site and depreciate value, and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and ou sustainable development of the area. C
2. The proposed structure for which permission for retention and completion is sought, by reference to the y nt physical interventions made and minimal retention of the original building features such as pattern of ou openings, roof details and materials, is considered to be contrary to Policy Objective PPH 3.18 of the Roscommon County Development Plan 2022- 2028 which seeks to protect the traditional building and C housing stock of the rural parts of the county. The development would therefore be contrary to the on proper planning and sustainable development of the area. m m

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

Reasons under review. View the official case.

1. The proposed development, by reason of its nature, scale, operational use and its location on o un-zoned lands in a rural area, accessed from a local road with a substandard access rp arrangement, constitutes haphazard and sporadic development in a rural area which is contrary to the policies and objectives of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) Pu pertaining to appropriate rural based enterprise, in particular Objective RD O1, Section 9.3 Rural Economy & Rural Enterprise and the criteria set out in table 9.1 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied). Having regard to the foregoing, the proposed n development would set an undesirable precedent for developments of this type on un-zoned io lands, would be injurious to the rural amenity of this area and would therefore be contrary to ct the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. pe
2. Having regard to the location of the site off the L2019 local road, and the lack of information submitted with the application regarding sightline details at the entrance to the site, it has not ns been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the development to be retained can be safely accessed. The intensification of activity at this location would generate -I additional traffic movements onto the L2019, increasing the potential for traffic conflict and creating an unacceptable risk to the safety of all road users. Consequently, the development to il be retained would constitute a traffic hazard, endanger public safety and would therefore, be nc contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ou
3. Objective IN O22 requires the implementation of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS) and other nature-based surface water drainage as an integral part of all new development C proposals. In the absence of nature-based surface water drainage details, the proposed development is contrary to Objective IN O22 and Objective IN O58 of the Kildare County y Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) and if granted would therefore be contrary to the nt proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ou C e ar ld Ki

The proposed vehicular access to the subject site is located off local primary road L-2103- 36, where the vertical road alignment is sub optimum, where traffic speeds are high for this category of road and where visibility is restricted in a north eastern orientation due to the deficient alignment of the road, therefore the required 90m sight distances from the subject site cannot be achieved in the said direction. In this regard, and based on the information submitted with the planning application, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposed development would not be contrary to DM Standard 28 of the County Development Plan 2022-2028, where turning movements generated by the proposed development onto and from the local road would interfere with the safety and free flow of traffic on the public road and would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users or otherwise and therefore would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. 3

Notwithstanding the subject site’s constraints, the Planning Authority considers that the provision of a c. 39dph scheme would represent underdevelopment of an accessible site with direct access to frequent public transport services via the adjacent Core Bus Corridor. It is considered that the proposal does not adhere with the requirements of, inter alia, Policy Objective PHP18 of the County Development Plan 2022-2028, as varied, and Table 3.1 of the Compact Settlement Guidelines with regard to the density ranges applied to locations in Dublin classified as ‘Urban Neighbourhoods' of 50-250dph. Therefore, the proposed development, would set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The Planning Authority notes that the subject permission relates to an amendment of the parent permission granted under Register Reference D15A/0695, the duration of which was previously extended under Register Reference D15A/0695/E. The conditions of the subject 'amendment' permission were linked back to those of the 'parent' permission by way of Condition 1 of D21A/0465. As such, the planning permission on this site, both under D15A/0695/E and D21A/0465 has expired. Therefore, the 'appropriate period' within which an extension of duration application could be made has passed. Under the requirements of Section 42(1)(d) of the Act, the Planning Authority is precluded by law from extending the appropriate period. Note: Having regard to Section 42(4) of the Act, which provides that the aggregate period of extensions granted shall not exceed five years, and noting that a five-year extension has already been granted under Register Reference D15A/0695/E, the Planning Authority is precluded from granting any further extension of the 'parent' permission.

It is considered that the proposed development by reason of its proposed interventions would seriously injure the physical and visual architectural integrity of No. 11 Thomond Square, a protected structure (Ref. PS244). The proposed development would materially contravene Policy Objectives SO7, 8.17. 8.18, 8.19 and 8.22 of the Cork City Development Plan 2022-2028 and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

As reflected in the conclusion reached in the Stage 1 Appropriate Assessment Screening undertaken by ni Roscommon County Council as the Competent Authority, on the basis of information provided (and an having regard to the fact that a requested Natura Impact Statement to enable the undertaking of a Stage Pl 2 Appropriate Assessment has not been provided) it cannot be concluded that this development would not unduly impact upon the receiving natural environment and its associated flora and fauna, and in il, particular that the proposed development, individually or in combination with other plans or projects nc would not adversely affect the integrity of Natura 2000 sites (Lough Ree SAC and Lough Ree SPA) having ou regard to the conservation objectives of those sites. The proposed development would accordingly be C contrary to the provisions of Policy Objectives NH 10.7, NH 10.8 and NH 10.9 as set out in Volume I of the Roscommon County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would be contrary to the proper planning and y nt sustainable development of the area. ou

The proposed development due to its scale massing and design, would contravene “Objective RHO 5” of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 in relation to ensuring that the house design utilise g the Mayo County Council Design Guidelines for Rural Housing and, would also be contrary to Section in 2.7 “Rural Housing Extensions” of Volume 2 Development Management Standards of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028. Therefore, the proposed development would adversely impact on the nn character of a landscape, which it is necessary to preserve, in terms of design and visual prominence, and if permitted, would seriously injure the amenities, and depreciate the value, of property in the a vicinity. Pl o ay

Reasons under review. View the official case.

Reasons under review. View the official case.

1. Within the statutory timeframe the applicant has failed to demonstrate that effluent can be discharged to the ground at the subject site without risk to public health or the environment. In y! this regard it is noted that the proposed percolation area is inadequately sited and contains insufficient clear open space to comply with the EPA’s 2021 code of practice ‘Domestic nl Wastewater Treatment Systems (Population Equivalent <10)’ and minimum separation O distances to safely discharge effluent within the limited confines of the site. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development is prejudicial to public health and the environment s se and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. po
2. The proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard because required sightlines measured in both horizontal and vertical planes have not been accurately r surveyed or demonstrated in accordance with National Roads Authority –Design Manual for Pu Roads and Bridges standards for this local county road and is therefore contrary to proper planning and development. g
3. in The applicant has not submitted a feasibility connection agreement from Uisce Eireann in w relation to water supply connection to serve the proposed development. In the absence of a water ie connection agreement, the proposed development is therefore considered premature and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. -V il

Reasons under review. View the official case.

1. The proposed entrance to be retained contravenes Section 1.5.7.6. Vol 6. of the Kerry County Development Plan 2022-2028 that limits the width of entrances to 3 metres. The proposed es development to be retained would, therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. os
2. The proposed development to be retained by itself and by reason of the precedent that a grant of rp retention planning permission would set, would seriously injure the amenities of the area. The Pu proposed development to be retained would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. n io ct pe ns -I ity or th Au ng ni an Pl rry Ke

1. Having regard to Policy Objective RH4 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028, and on the basis of the lacunae in the documentation received, it is considered that the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that they meet the housing need criteria as set out in the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028. Therefore, the proposed development is considered contrary to the rural housing provisions of the said county development plan. Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would contravene materially DM Standard 7 and Policy Objective RH4 contained in the Galway County Development Plan 2022- 2028, would be contrary to ministerial guidelines issued to the planning authorities under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), would set an undesirable precedent for similar future development in the area, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. Having regard to the extensive internal access road required to serve the proposed development, the failure of the applicant to satisfactorily demonstrate the availability of adequate sightlines in a northerly direction from the proposed site entrance, the significant scale of roadside boundary intervention required to facilitate vehicular access to the site and the location of the site within a Class 3 Special Landscape Character Area, the Planning Authority considers that the proposed development would result in an inappropriate and visually intrusive form of development. The proposed internal roadway would introduce a prominent engineered feature into the rural landscape, eroding the prevailing rural character of the area and failing to assimilate satisfactorily with the receiving environment. The proposed development would therefore be out of character with the established pattern of development in the area, would represent a disorderly form of development, and would set an undesirable precedent for similar forms of development. Accordingly, the Planning Authority considers that the proposal would materially contravene Development Management Standard 28, Policy Objectives LCM1, LCM2 and LCM3 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028 and therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. 3

REASONS It is recommended that permission be refused for the following reason: 1. Having regard to the scale bulk and massing of the proposed rear dormer, it is considered that the proposed dormer would be excessive, visually incongruous in the roofscape and would result in significant negative visual impact on the character of the streetscape. Therefore, the proposed attic conversion with rear dormer fails to comply with Section 12.3.7.1 Extensions to Dwelling (iv) Alterations at Roof/Attic level of the Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would set an undesirable precent for similar development within the area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The proposed development, which seeks an increase in the total number of residential units from 67 no. to 69 no. units, would result in a residential density of 83.23 units per hectare. This exceeds the anticipated density range of 40-80 units per hectare applicable to a Suburban-Urban Extension area as set out in Section 4.3.1.1 Policy Objective PHP18: Residential Density. Having regard to the location of the site and its level of accessibility, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that a density in excess of the prescribed range has been justified. The proposed development would therefore constitute overdevelopment of the site and would be contrary to Section 4.3.1.1 Policy Objective PHP18: Residential Density, and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

RECOMMENDATION Pursuant to the Planning and Development Acts 2000, (as amended), it is hereby recommended, for the reason set out in the First Schedule hereto, to REFUSE PERMISSION for the following reason: 1. While the principle of a residential development on this site is acceptable, it is considered that the provision of a development with a density of 18.7 uph (rising to 25 uph net) would represent underdevelopment of an existing, well-located and serviced site with access to high-quality, high-frequency public transport services in the area. It is considered that the proposal does not comply with the requirements of Policy Objectives PHP18 and PHP19 of the County Development Plan 2022-2028 as varied, and Table 3.1 of the Compact Settlement Guidelines with regard to the density ranges applied to locations in Dublin classified as ‘City - Urban Neighbourhood’, which together seek to provide for higher densities, and more efficient use of scarce urban land. The proposal is considered to represent piecemeal development where plots are brought forward for development individually, that if accepted as a principle would result in an unsustainable pattern of development. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The proposed increase in ridge height to accommodate the attic conversion and proposed rear dormer extension would be visually dominant in the streetscape as it would break the established ridge line height of the dwelling and terrace, and be contrary to Section 4.0 and 5.0 of Appendix 18 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028. The proposed development would therefore, in itself and by the precedent it would set for the construction of similar dormer extensions, be seriously injurious to residential and visual amenity and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

It is an objective of the Cork County Development Plan 2022, as set out in Policy Objective RP 5-22, to encourage new dwelling house designs that respect the character, pattern and tradition of existing places, materials and built forms and that fit appropriately into the landscape. This is reinforced by Policy Objective GI 14-9 which highlights landscape as an important factor in all land-use proposals and encourages high standards of design and siting while also striving to protect the visual and scenic amenities of the built and natural environment. Having regard to the pattern and character of development in the area, it is considered that the proposed development, by reason of the topography of the site, the elevated positioning of the proposed development in a sensitive coastal landscape, the substantial setback distance from the adjoining public road and the backland nature of the site, the substandard access track and general design/siting, would result in an isolated and haphazard form of development that would not adequately reflect the established pattern of development in the area or satisfactorily integrate into surrounding rural landscape. The proposed development would also set a poor precedent for similar inappropriate and piecemeal development in the area and would seriously detract from the visual amenities and character of this area. The proposed development would, thus, materially contravene Objectives RP 5-22, GI 14-9 and PL 3-5 of the Cork County Development Plan, 2022 and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Reasons under review. View the official case.

The proposed kiosk, by reason of its location adjacent to an active access road serving vehicular traffic, including cars, delivery vehicles and agricultural machinery, would give rise to an unacceptable risk to pedestrian safety. The development would result in customers accessing and congregating in close proximity to moving vehicles, with no segregated pedestrian route or waiting area provided. Furthermore, inadequate sightlines exist between vehicles exiting the access road and pedestrians approaching or using the kiosk, creating the potential for conflict between pedestrians and traffic. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public safety and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

The proposed development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard as 65m sightlines have not been shown to be achievable to the east, at the junction of the private lane from which access is proposed and the public road. As such the proposed development would be contrary to Section 8.8 of Volume 1 and Section 6.2.6 Of Volume 2 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. Insufficient information has been submitted in respect of the proposed wastewater treatment and disposal system and environmental concerns have been raised by both the Department of Housing, Local Government & Heritage and Wexford County Council's Environment Department. In the absence of all the necessary details, the proposed development may be prejudicial to public health, and contrary therefore to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate housing need in accordance with the rural housing policy as set out in Volume 1 Table 4.6 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022- 2028. The proposal is therefore contrary to the proper planning and the sustainable development of the area.
3. There is already an existing dwelling on site with a floor size of 335.40 sqm. The proposed development is for a separate dwelling and not for an attached subdivision of a dwelling or a granny flat. Therefore, the proposed dwelling is contrary to Volume 2, Objective 8.3.1 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 in relation minimum site size requirements. The proposed development is therefore considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
4. The siting of the proposed development with extensive views within a sensitive landscape designated as being a River Valley Landscape would result in incongruous development that would be visually prominent on this exposed and elevated site and would not be easily absorbed by the surrounding landscape. The proposed development would likely result in a significant and detrimental impact on the visual amenities and character of this rural area and would set an inappropriate and undesirable precedent for further development of this scale within the rural landscape. The siting of the proposed development fails to have sufficient regard to the rural housing design and visual impact guidance as expressed by Section 3.1.1 and Section 3.1.2 of Volume 2 Development Management Manual, and Section 3.2 and Section 6.1 of Volume 7 Landscape Character, and would therefore be contrary to Objectives L04, L05, L06, L08 and L12 of Volume 7 Landscape Character, Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028. Furthermore, the applicant has failed to demonstrate an over-riding need to reside at this visually sensitive location and therefore does not satisfy the rural housing criteria as expressed by Table 4-6 of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028.
5. Insufficient details and contradictory information in relation to the policies of the Wexford County Development Plan 2022-2028 have been submitted which are considered contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. The proposed development, by reason of the change of use of a unit permitted solely for short- term holiday letting to permanent residential accommodation, would materially contravene n Condition 9 of the parent planning permission (Ref. 04/528). The proposed change of use would io undermine the established holiday accommodation function of An Seanchai Holiday Cottages and ct would set an undesirable precedent for similar changes of use within the development, thereby pe undermining the terms and conditions of the original planning permission as granted. The proposed ns development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. -I
2. Having regard to the design and layout of the existing dwelling and the limited provision of private y amenity space, which is exposed to overlooking from adjoining properties and the wider holiday rit cottage development, it is considered that the property would provide an inadequate standard of ho privacy and residential amenity for future permanent occupants. The proposed development would, therefore, result in a substandard level of residential amenity and would be contrary to the t Au proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ng ni an Pl C C C rd erfo at W

The proposal, by reason of layout specifically including for a bathroom/sanitary facilities in a permitted garden studio structure, would fail to accord with the provisions of the 2022-2028 CDP, specifically BFP6 of the 2025 SDCC House Extension Design Guide relating to Detached Garden Rooms and Sheds. Furthermore, the proposal, if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for similar non-compliant developments, which would in themselves and cumulatively, be harmful to the residential amenities of the area, and would contravene the ‘RES’ land use zoning objective of the site which seeks “To protect and/or improve Residential Amenity”, and would thus be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

1. Based on the information submitted, it is considered that the proposed development, if granted, would contravene Rural Housing Objective RHO-1 of Volume 1 of the Mayo County Development Plan Au 2022-2028, would constitute haphazard development in a rural area and would militate against the preservation of the rural environment. The proposed development would therefore interfere with the character of the landscape which it is necessary to preserve and if permitted would be contrary to the g proper planning and sustainable development of the area. in nn
2. The development at this location would contravene Objective RHO 5 of the Mayo County Development Plan 2022-2028 in relation to ensuring that the house design utilise the Mayo County a Council Design Guidelines for Rural Housing. The proposed development would adversely impact on Pl the character of a landscape, which it is necessary to preserve, in terms of design and visual prominence, and if permitted, would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development o of the area. ay M

1. Road Safety y! The proposed development is located on the R-445, a highly trafficked Strategic nl Regional Road. Given the proposed developments prominent location at an O entrance to the town centre from the eastern approach, it has the potential to es cause distraction to motorists. Permitting such a development would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and would therefore be contrary to the os proper planning and sustainable development of the area. rp Pu
2. Residential and Visual Amenity g By its nature, the proposed development will generate a high degree of light in pollution. With a number of dwellings nearby, there is the potential to seriously w injure the residential amenity of the surrounding area. Permitting such a V ie potentially disruptive development would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. y, rit
3. Impact on Protected Structures o th The proposed development is located within 50 meters of three protected Au structures, references RPS188_A, RPS188_B and RPS 934. The proposed development has the potential to significantly detract from these structures and g injure the architectural significance of their presence. Therefore, permitting the in proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and nn sustainable development of the area. la lP n ci ou C ty n ou C s oi La

1. The proposed development, given its location c.30m south of the development boundary of the Maynooth and Environs Joint Local Area Plan 2025-2031, Maynooth being designated as a Key rp Town within the Dublin Metropolitan Area in the Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy, would Pu be contrary to the provisions of Policy HO P15 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied), which seeks to preserve and protect the open character of transitional lands outside of settlement boundaries in order to prevent urban sprawl near towns, villages and settlements and n to maintain a clear demarcation and distinction between urban areas and the countryside. The tio proposed development, if permitted, would contravene policy HO P15 of the Kildare County ec Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied), and would set an undesirable precedent for similar development in close proximity to the settlement boundary of Maynooth, a Key Town within the sp Metropolitan Area, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. In
2. Objective IN O13 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) seeks to ensure l- that adequate wastewater services will be available to service development prior to the granting of i planning permission. On the basis of the proposal to discharge foul flows from the proposed nc development to the public sewer via a private foul sewer pumping station that is offsite and not in the ownership of the Applicant, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated to the Planning Authority ou that adequate wastewater services are available to service the proposed development. To permit the proposed development would be contrary to objective IN O13 of the Kildare County C Development Plan 2023-2029 (as varied) and would be prejudicial to public health and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. y nt ou C e ar ld Ki

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

1. To permit the proposed development whereby the site curtilage as delineated for in red outline on the site location map and associated documentation lodged traverses the boundaries of third party approved developments in the environs of the subject site would materially contravene the terms of Planning Ref. 25/60023, undermine the validity of the aforementioned approved planning unit and therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. Based on the submissions received as part of the planning application and having regard to Policy Objective RH2 and Policy Objective RH4 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022- 2028, and on the basis of the lacunae in the documentation received, it is considered that the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that they meet the housing need criteria as set out in the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028. Therefore, the proposed development is considered contrary to the rural housing provisions of the said county development plan. Accordingly, to grant the proposed development would contravene materially DM Standard 7 and Policy Objectives RH2 and RH4 contained in the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028, would be contrary to ministerial guidelines issued to the planning authorities under Section 28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), would set an undesirable precedent for similar future development in the area, and would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
3. Based on the information submitted, the plans and particulars received, it is considered that the applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposed sightlines can be achieved without significant intervention to existing roadside boundaries and natural features along the L-82451 local road. Having regard to the substantial extent of roadside boundary alterations required to facilitate the proposed access, it is considered that the development would result in the removal and/or disturbance of existing roadside features and would be contrary to Policy Objective TWHS1 (Trees, Hedgerows, Natural Boundaries and Stone Walls) and therefore DM Standard 28 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028.
4. Having regard to details as submitted and in the absence of detailing all separation distance in accordance with the EPA Code of Practice, the Planning Authority cannot be satisfied that the subject site can satisfactorily treat and dispose of domestic effluent on site in accordance with the EPA Code of Practice: Domestic Waste Water Treatment Systems (Population Equivalent ≤ 10). Therefore, if permitted as proposed the development would be prejudicial to public health and contrary to Policy Objective WW6 of the Galway County Development Plan 2022 – 2028. 3

I recommend REFUSAL OF PERMISSION for the; • alteration to existing stair hall at first floor level to provide for new flight of stairs from half-landing to attic, • removal of portion of stair hall ceiling, • installation of new flight of timber stairs to match adjoining flight at half-landing, and, • the installation of new ridge vents pursuant to the Planning & Development Act 2000, as amended, for the following reason: 1. Having regard to the status of the subject dwelling as a Protected Structure, it is considered that the proposed alteration to the existing stair hall at first floor level, the removal of a portion of the stair hall ceiling and the installation of a new flight of timber stairs would result in the unnecessary loss of the original fabric and alter the original floor plan. Furthermore, the installation of new ridge vents at the roofline would result in an unacceptable visual impact on the roofscape. The proposed works, if permitted, would adversely affect the special architectural interest and character of the Protected Structure and its setting, and would establish an undesirable precedent for similar alterations to Protected Structures within the Architectural Conservation Area. The proposed development would, therefore, be contrary to Policy Objectives HER8 Section 12.11.2.1 of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028 (as varied September 2026) and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. The site is zoned Z8 with the objective ‘To protect the existing architectural and civic design character, and to allow only for limited expansion consistent with the conservation objective’. The configuration of the internal layout across lower ground floor level and ground floor level to facilitate the provision of 3 no. residential units would result in an unacceptable poor level of amenity afforded to future occupiers by way of internal layout and design. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022 – 2028, including Section 15.8 Residential Development and Section 15.9 Apartment Standards and would contravene the zoning objective through over intensification and overdevelopment of the site. The proposal would set an undesirable precedent for similar type development and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. 2. The proposed works, which includes poorly configurated and considered residential floor plans, would further erode the special architectural character, legibility and hierarchy of spaces within the Protected Structures. The proposed development would therefore contravene Policies BHA 2 (b), (d), (f) and (g) of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028, would represent a poor architectural response to the historic site and would set an undesirable precedent for similar type development. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. The development proposed for retention is representative of a standalone detached dwelling which would represent a substandard and haphazard form of residential es development having regard to: os a) The size and layout of the proposed development for retention; rp b) Its reliance on a shared private wastewater treatment system serving another dwelling Pu and; c) Its reliance on shared private amenity space currently serving another dwelling; n io The development if permitted would therefore be contrary to CPO 6.4 of the County ct Development Plan which requires that “All new housing developments (including single and rural houses) shall achieve the highest quality of layout and design, in accordance with the pe standards set out in the Development and Design Standards (Appendix 1) and the Wicklow Single Rural House Design Guide (Appendix 2)” and contrary to CPO 13.17 which states that ns private wastewater treatment plants for multi-house developments will not be permitted. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to public health, set an -I undesirable precedent for similar type development in this area and would therefore be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development. il nc
2. The proposed development is located within the Level 7 - TYPE 1 Village settlement of Kilpeddar, these settlements represent the more rural settlements in the County. It is an ou objective of the County Development Plan as set out under Objective CPO 6.37 that any new single house developments shall be for persons who are either a resident for at least 3 years C duration in County Wicklow or in permanent employment for at least 3 years duration in y County Wicklow, of within 30km of the Level 7 -Type 1 Village, in this case Kilpeddar, prior to nt making of application. Based on the details submitted the applicant does not come within the scope of this policy. The Planning Authority is therefore not satisfied that this ou development will meet the needs of local as opposed to regional growth and therefore the development is contrary to the stated County Development Plan policy and to the Regional C Planning Guidelines and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ow kl ic W

Official refusal reason text is being verified. Use the published decision evidence for the source decision.

1. The only access to the proposed development is via a currently substandard and poorly configured access road ('Oakfield Road') and the proposed transition between the proposed development and the existing road appears to have been haphazardly arranged without alignment of landscaping and pedestrian and cyclist facilities. In the absence of the necessary infrastructure upgrades or an alternative access arrangement to facilitate the intensification and change of use on this site as proposed, the proposed development would be served by a substandard access arrangement which would be prejudicial to road safety, would provide a poor design standard and environment for a high-density residential development and active travel link in a town centre and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The proposed development is of a type specified in 10(b) of Part 2 of Schedule 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended) and exceeds the relevant threshold, and an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is therefore required. The application site is within Clondalkin Town Centre and is within a business district (as per the definition contained in the same regulations). Notwithstanding the same, an EIA Report has not been provided and the Planning Authority is unable to undertake EIA of the proposed development. The Planning Authority is precluded from granting permission in such circumstances.
3. Having regard to: • The submitted traffic analysis which is based on surveys over one year old and does not appear to show actual traffic figures and queue lengths on the Ninth Lock Road; • The proximity of the combined vehicular entrance to a busy junction; • Inadequacy of details submitted, including absence of swept path analysis and sightlines, for vehicular entrances for the undercroft car park and future connections to the northeast of the site; • The car parking ratio for the site of 0.49 which is considered to be too low to adequately serve the development; • The predominance of car parking on the central link street which is to be a future active travel link; and • The potential for “ransom strips” for future connections by the proposed layout not providing connection up to the site boundary; it is considered that the proposed development would be premature due to the deficiency in the road network serving the area; would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard; would not be adequately serviced by car parking which would likely result in displaced and haphazard parking behaviour in the surrounding area; and would contravene UD2 Objective 2 of the Clondalkin Local Planning Framework 2026 as it relates to north-south connections in this area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
4. Having regard to details submitted which demonstrate that the proposed development: • Fails to demonstrate that key areas of public open space will receive adequate levels of sunlight; • Fails to provide adequate levels of sunlight to a significant number of residential units (24%) with some units receiving 0.0 hours of sunlight on 21st March; and • Has failed to adequately assess the potential impact of the proposed development on reasonably anticipated future development on adjoining lands to the north and south; the proposed development would provide open spaces of poor amenity value, would result in an unacceptable standard of residential amenity for future occupants of dwellings which do not receive the minimum recommended level of sunlight, and would potentially prejudice the future development of adjoining sites. The proposed development would therefore undermine the ‘TC’ zoning objective and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
5. Having regard to: • Extensive areas of blank and inactive ground level frontages, particularly to the central amenity space; • The haphazard location and arrangement of Blocks 5 and 6 which do not integrate successfully within the overall urban design strategy of the scheme, are not provided with adequate private amenity space as houses, and which by their proximity undermine the long-term management and protection of the eastern boundary hedgerow which is a key green infrastructure feature; • That Block 5 and 6, by their siting, prevent the improvement of the local GI network as sought for this area in policies GI2 Objective 1 and GI3 Objective 2 of the Clondalkin Local Planning Framework; and • The concern for overlooking and privacy in respect of the creche outdoor play space and the rear of Block 2C; it is considered that the proposal would result in a poor standard of public real; would fail to create an attractive and legible urban structure consistent with the zoning objectives for the site; would undermine policies GI2 Objective 1 and GI3 Objective 2 of the Clondalkin Local Planning Framework in relation to the improvement of green infrastructure assets in the area; would undermine policy CBH4 of the LPF relating to the integration of new development in the village centre. All of this combined with the the performance of the proposed development in terms of sunlight, the proposed density of 238.6 dph, the relative provision of public open space compared to the CDP standard of 2.4ha per 1,000 population, and the ratio and layout of car parking represents overdevelopment of the subject site. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
6. Childcare. The proposed development includes 154 no. family-sized units (two bedrooms or more) but fails to provide adequate childcare facilities to serve the development. Having regard to the limited existing childcare capacity in the area and the absence of sufficient justification for the proposed reduction in childcare provision, the Planning Authority considers that a creche facility with a capacity of approximately 41 children should be provided. The proposal would therefore result in inadequate supporting social infrastructure and would contravene policy CHE12 Objective 1 of the Clondalking Local Planning Framework in relation to provision of childcare in teh area, and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
7. Flooding. The SDCC Natural Water Department has recommended refusal on the basis of flood risk, that adequate detail has not been provided in relation to measures which would counter the risk of flooding in this area, which is designated as ‘Flood Zone B’ on county maps. Notwithstanding the submitted FRA (and the Justification Test in Section 5.1) and the justification of development at the subject location in relation to the first criteria of the justification test for development management that the subject lands have been zoned and designated for the particular use proposed in the County Development Plan and Clondalkin LPF, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that flood risk has been sufficiently mitigated and managed through the location, lay-out and design of the development to reduce such risks to an acceptable level. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

Reasons not yet available here. View the official case.

The site serves as a gateway to the centre of Trim. The proposed design is incongruous with the streetscape and surrounding residential properties and of insufficient architectural quality, particularly in this sensitive location adjacent to an Architectural Conservation Area. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed development, by virtue of its design at this location would negatively impact on the setting of the Trim Architectural Conservation Area (ACA) and would therefore contravene materially objective y! HER POL 20 of the Meath County Development Plan 2021-2027 which reads as follows; nl “HER POL 20 To require that all development proposals within or contiguous to an ACA be sympathetic O to the character of the area, that the design is appropriate in terms of height, scale, plot density, layout, s materials and finishes and are appropriately sited and designed with regard to the advice given in the se Statements of Character for each area, where available”. po The proposed development would therefore adversely affect an Architectural Conservation Area, set an undesirable precedent and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. r Pu g in w ie -V il nc ou C y nt ou C th ea M

1. The Planning Authority is not satisfied, on the basis of the information submitted, that the existing wastewater treatment infrastructure, including the pumping station and rising main, has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional loading arising from the proposed development without risk of y system overloading or discharge to the receiving river, which is currently nl identified as being at risk. The applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate O that the proposed development would not give rise to pollution of waters or a risk to public health. The proposed development would therefore be es prejudicial to public health and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. os
2. The proposed development, by reason of its poor urban design and repetitive rp architectural treatment, together with inadequate secure cycle parking, EV Pu charging, landscaping, and open space would result in a substandard residential development. The proposal would be contrary to the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines for Planning n Authorities (2024), the Longford County Development Plan 2021–2027 and the io proper planning and sustainable development of the area. ct pe ns -I il nc ou C y nt ou C rd fo ng Lo

The Planning Authority considers that the applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate the justification for the closure of ‘Entrance B’ and the operation of ‘Entrance A’ as a ‘semi-controlled’ access point. The proposed development would reduce permeability and accessibility for pedestrians, cyclists and vulnerable road users and would be contrary to the requirements of Objective CIOSO51, Objective CMO19 and Objective CMO30 of the Fingal Development Plan 2023 - 2029 which aims to ensure permeability and the removal of barriers to active movement. To permit this development would set an undesirable precedent for similar development and would therefore be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.

Under the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028, the site is subject to zoning objective A1, which seeks “to provide for new residential communities and Sustainable Neighbourhood Infrastructure in accordance with approved local area plans or approved Framework Plans.” The site is located within the Rathmichael / Ferndale Local Area Plan boundary, for which a Framework Plan will be prepared. Section 2.6.1.3 Local Area Plan Plan-Making Programme of the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028 notes that within the A1 zoned lands at Rathmichael there are a number of existing properties and 'minor modifications and extensions to these properties can be considered in advance of the relevant Local Area Plans.' The proposed development which comprises the construction of a 62no. units, having regard to its nature and scale, would not constitute 'minor modification and extensions to existing property'. Accordingly, the proposed development would be contrary to the provisions of Section 2.6.1.3 of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028, would set an undesirable precedent for other similar developments and would be materially contrary to the A1 zoning objective of the area, which seeks “to provide for new residential communities and Sustainable Neighbourhood Infrastructure in accordance with approved local area plans or approved Framework Plans.” It is considered that the proposed development undermines the intended plan-led and co-ordinated approach to residential development in the Rathmichael area as provided for in the Dun Loaghaire Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. Having regard to the location of the site within the Rathmichael Framework Plan area, the active progression of the Rathmichael Framework Plan intended towards a Draft Plan publication in 2027, the requirement under the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028 (as varied) for the coordinated and plan-led development of the Rathmichael area, and the need to determine the appropriate scale, phasing and supporting infrastructure necessary to facilitate future growth, it is considered that the proposed development would be premature and would prejudice the comprehensive and coordinated development of the wider Rathmichael area. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Sections 2.4.6: Phasing and 2.6.1.3: Local Area Plan Making Programme of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028 (as varied) and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. Having regard to the site location and the poor quality of pedestrian connections as a result of deficient footpath and active travel infrastructure linking to the site, it is considered that the development would fail to provide safe and accessible means of pedestrian access to and from the development suitable to serve the proposed nursing home and assisted living accommodation. The proposed development would therefore be prejudicial to pedestrian safety and contrary to Section 12.3.8.2: Nursing Homes/Assisted Living Accommodation of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028 (as varied), which requires nursing homes and assisted living accommodation to be served by the provision of good footpath links, and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

1. The site is located in an area where public sewerage facilities are not available. As stated in the Cork County Development Plan 2022-2028, it is the Councils policy, as set out in the Objectives RP 5-23 and WM11-5 to ensure that septic tanks or proprietary treatment systems comply with the EPA approved guidelines including maintenance. On the basis of the information received, the wastewater treatment plant in situ constitutes unauthorised development for which there is no planning permission in place for its retention, and the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that the site is suitable for the disposal of foul effluent and a site suitability assessment and report in respect of the on-site disposal of effluent has not been submitted in accordance with the requirements of the EPA Code of Practice 2021. In the absence of such information, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the proposal would meet Objectives RP5-23 and WM 11-5 of the Cork County Development Plan 2022-2028. The Planning Authority is therefore not satisfied that the proposal would not result in the creation of a public health hazard, and it is therefore considered that the proposal would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
2. The proposed development would involve the complete demolition of the existing traditional vernacular two storey dwellinghouse within an area of High Value Landscape. As stated in the Cork County Development Plan 2022-2028, it is the Councils policy as set out under the Objectives HE16-6 and HE16-21 to ensure that such buildings are retained where possible and new replacement dwellinghouse should respect the character pattern and tradition of existing places materials and built forms that fit appropriately in the landscape. Notwithstanding the complete demolition of the existing dwellinghouse, as proposed, it is considered that the proposed demolition would adversely undermine the architectural heritage character of the area given that the design, form, materials and appearance of the replacement dwellinghouse are not reflected in the proposed scheme and the proposal would conflict with that advice set out in the Architectural Heritage Impact Assessment Report dated August 2026, which has outlined the reasoned justification for reuse of such features and fabric of the existing dwellinghouse. Accordingly, the proposed development would materially contravene the Objectives HE 16-6 and HE 16-21 of the County Development Plan 2022-2028 and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Having regard to the nature of the proposed works, it is considered that the development would result in an unacceptable form of an enclosed residential es development, restricting permeability, integration and connectivity with the surrounding area, would set an undesirable precedent for future os development of this kind and would, therefore, be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. rp Pu

1. Having regard to the residential nature and scale of development permitted under SD22A/0455 / ABP-315996-23, the nature of the subject proposal which provides for a significant intensification of residential use through the increased capacity of each dwelling unit, the absence of facilities for cyclist/pedestrian/vulnerable road users and traffic generated by the development, and the absence of demonstration of safe movements within and to/from the subject site along adjoining laneways, the Planning Authority is not satisfied that the subject laneways adjoining the site are equipped to safely accommodate the proposed intensification of residential use and generation of additional movements. The proposed development would therefore endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard.
2. The subject proposal, by reason of the insufficient bedroom size, aggregate living and bedroom floor area of the 3 no. dwellings as constructed, would fail to provide an acceptable standard of internal accommodation in accordance with the requirements of Section 5.3.2 and Table 5.1 of the 2007 Quality Housing for Sustainable Communities, Best Practice Guidelines or Section 12.6.7 Residential Standards of the 2022-2028 CDP, and would constitute substandard residential amenity which would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and the ‘RES’ zoning objective of the subject site. Furthermore, the proposal, if permitted, would set an undesirable precedent for other substandard development, which would in themselves and cumulatively, be harmful to proper planning and sustainable development of the area.