HomeMy WebLinkAbout2560533 - Submission - [E] James GoldsmithSubmission Details
Submitter
Name James Goldsmith
Address Ballybrennan Little Killinick Killinick Y35P262
Note
In relation to application
File Number 2560533
Name Timber Frames Ltd. Fine Living
Address RB Coogans Hardware Lakeview Business Park Castleblayney A75A386RECEIVED: 03/02/2026
29th January 2026.
The Senior Administrative Officer.
Planning Department.
Monaghan County Council.
1, Dublin Street,
Monaghan H18 X982
James Goldsmith,
Ballybrennan,
Killinick,
Co, Wexford.
Dear Sir / Madam
RE: PA REF. 2560533 – OBJECTION TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BY FINE LIVING
TIMBER FRAMES LIMITED FOR RETENTION AND FULL PERMISSION FOR
DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF RETENTION PERMISSION FOR EXISTING
EXTERNAL YARD STORAGE BUILDING WITH FULL PERMISSION FOR CHANGE OF
USE FROM EXISTING RETAIL (RB COOGAN) TO TIMBER FRAME MANUFACTURING
FACILITY WITH ANCILLARY OFFICE AND STAFF FACILITIES, ELEVATIONAL
CHANGES, NEW SIGNAGE, AN EXTENSION TO THE EXISTING EXTERNAL YARD
STORAGE BUILDING, NEW PLANT ROOM / ANCILLARY STORE, ALTERATIONS TO
THE EXISTING CAR PARKING AREAS, REVISED BOUNDARY TREATMENTS AND
ALL ASSOCIATED SITE DEVELOPMENT WORKS AT RB COOGAN HARDWARE,
LAKEVIEW BUSINESS PARK, CASTLEBLANEY A75A386, COUNTY MONAGHAN
I wish to lodge this objection against the above proposed development as submitted to Monaghan
County Council. The objection fee of €20 has been paid by electronic transfer. Please correspond with
me at my address as stated at the beginning of this letter.
My reasons for objecting are set out below.
1.Noise impacts, hours of operation and effects on nearby housing
The submitted Noise Assessment indicates that the development is intended to operate on a
continuous 24-hour, seven-day basis and confirms that, without mitigation, acceptable noise
limits would be exceeded. Despite this, the proposed 24/7 operation is not disclosed in the
public notices. Given the potential for significant adverse impacts on nearby residential
properties, this omission prevents the public from fully understanding the nature and scale of
the proposal. RECEIVED: 03/02/2026
Residential dwellings are located in very close proximity to the south-west of the building,
with the rear elevations of these houses facing directly towards the site. It is likely that
bedrooms are positioned at first-floor level to the rear. I request confirmation that the Noise
Assessment specifically considered the location and layout of these dwellings and their
bedrooms.
The Noise Report acknowledges that the existing building does not meet required noise
attenuation standards and that substantial upgrades to the building fabric would be necessary.
In addition, many of the mitigation measures proposed for outdoor activities depend on
employee compliance, which cannot be guaranteed. Further detail is required regarding the
nature, feasibility, and enforceability of the proposed mitigation measures.
It is a fundamental planning principle that where new industrial uses are proposed adjacent
to established residential areas, the protection of residential amenity must be prioritised. If
the Council decides to grant permission despite these concerns, I request that the operation
of the building and the site be strictly limited to 9am–5pm, Monday to Friday, with no
activity on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays.
2.Traffic generation, parking layout and on-site safety
The application states that approximately 100 people will be employed at the premises. This
level of employment will inevitably generate a significant increase in traffic, yet no formal
traffic or transport assessment has been provided. The proposed use is also likely to result in
regular heavy goods vehicle movements, which require proper assessment.
In addition, the proposed layout includes a substantial area of car parking at the eastern end
of the yard. This arrangement would require employees to walk across active yard areas,
potentially placing pedestrians in conflict with trucks, forklifts and other machinery. I
request that the Council seek further information on site safety arrangements, including
clearly defined and segregated circulation routes for pedestrians, cars and heavy vehicles.
3.Use and intensification of external yard areas
The application does not clearly explain how the external yard areas will be used as part of
the proposed development. There is a strong likelihood that these areas would be used more
intensively than at present, potentially involving outdoor storage, frequent loading and
unloading, and increased use of machinery. The use of the yard should also be limited to 9 to
5, if granted, due to the noise impact on neighbours.
I ask the Council to require the applicant to re-advertise the proposal with a clear description
of the intended use of the yard areas and a comparison with their current use. The Council
should also seek confirmation that the existing use of the yard areas is authorised by
planning permission.
4.Environmental impacts and drainage concerns
There appears to be no Appropriate Assessment screening submitted with the application.
Given the nature of the proposed timber frame manufacturing use, there is potential for
pollution and waste generation both within the building and in the yard areas. The Council
must ensure that the development will not result in harm to the environment.
This issue is particularly concerning in light of the site’s planning history. A previous
application for a drainage system (05/40020) was refused. I therefore request that the
Council thoroughly examine the existing drainage arrangements to confirm that they are
authorised and assess whether the proposed drainage systems are adequate to serve the
development. RECEIVED: 03/02/2026
5.Impact on future road infrastructure
A new road is proposed to the north of the application site, connecting into the road that
would serve the development. The application does not assess whether the proposed
development could affect the delivery, capacity or operation of this new road. This potential
interaction should be fully evaluated before any decision is made.
6.Fire safety and proximity to site boundaries
The building is located extremely close to the south-western boundary of the site. Given the
proposed use and the likelihood that combustible materials may be stored or processed on-
site, there may be an increased risk of fire or explosion. I request that the Fire Officer be
consulted to assess fire risk, boundary separation distances and the adequacy of emergency
escape routes for employees.
7.Impact on adjoining zoned open space
There is land zoned for open space to the south and south-west of the application site. The
planning application does not address the potential impacts of the proposed development on
this land. Consideration of these impacts should form a core part of the assessment of the
proposal.
8.Failure to accurately define the lawful existing use of the premises
The application does not clearly or accurately describe the existing authorised use of the
premises. Examination of the planning history shows that the original permission (05/40002)
only allows a restricted and limited form of retail use. Although a later application
(05/40023) sought to remove these restrictions, the permission granted did not lift the
condition limiting the type and extent of retailing. That permission also included a
requirement to alter the colour of the building frontage.
I request that the Council carry out a detailed review of the type and extent of retail use
lawfully permitted on the site. If it is found that the public notices do not accurately reflect
what is authorised, the application should be declared invalid. This issue is critical, as failure
to clarify the lawful use could allow the owner to later claim a general retail permission,
potentially leading to occupation by discount or “pound shop” retailers. Such a scenario
would have a detrimental impact on the town centre, where existing retailers are already
under considerable pressure.
I would request that planning permission is refused.
Signed:
James Goldsmith RECEIVED: 03/02/2026