Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2660121 - Submission - Stephen & Brenda Knoop23 / a I.J..3 F T Monaghan County Council Roosky Monaghan Re: Objection to Planning Application Ref. 26/60121 — Owen Shevlin Dear Sir/Madam, We wish to lodge a formal objection to the above -mentioned planning application. We reside approximately 500 metres from the proposed site. This objection is made on the grounds that the proposed development would be contrary to the principles of proper planning and sustainable development and would materially contravene the policies and objectives of the Monaghan County Development Plan. 1. Substandard and Unsafe Road Infrastructure The proposed development is accessed via a narrow rural Class III local road (L8600), which is not designed or suitable for significant levels of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) traffic. The scale of the proposed development would result in a material increase in HGV movements. Existing conditions already give rise to road safety concerns. HGVs regularly use the road, passing in close proximity to dwellings. There are also concerns regarding vehicle speeds and driver behaviour within a constrained rural road environment. There have been instances where the public road has been temporarily obstructed due to materials becoming dislodged from vehicles in transit. This raises concerns in relation to road safety, obstruction of the public roadway, and residential amenity. In these circumstances, the proposed development would give rise to a traffic hazard due to increased HGV movements on a narrow and substandard road, with potential implications for public safety, particularly pedestrians and children. 2. Deterioration of Road Condition and Public Safety Risk The road is already in a poor state of repair, characterised by extensive potholing and structural deterioration. Continued and increased use by heavy vehicles would be likely to further accelerate this deterioration. This gives rise to: • A hazard for all road users • An unsafe environment for pedestrians, including children walking or cycling • Increased pressure on public infrastructure No evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the existing road network can safely accommodate the proposed level of traffic. 3. Material Impact on Residential Amenity The proposed development would have a significant adverse impact on residential amenity. Existing issues in the area include noise disturbance, vibration from passing HGVs, and impacts on adjoining property boundaries and landscaping. There is also evidence of damage to boundary treatments and gardens, including fencing and lawn areas. These impacts indicate that the intensity of activity is not compatible with a rural residential setting. 4. Noise and Disturbance Existing operations in the area are already giving rise to noise disturbance. The proposed development would further increase noise levels through additional traffic and site activity. This is not considered consistent with the reasonable expectation of residential amenity in a rural area. 5. Environmental and Hydrological Concerns The proposed development raises concerns in relation to environmental protection, particularly as it involves infilling within a bogland area. This gives rise to potential risks to water quality and local drainage patterns, given the sensitivity of the receiving environment. Of particular concern is the proximity of nearby watercourses, with surface water runoff from the site likely to discharge into the River Fane. Further disturbance of peatland areas may result in: • Degradation of water quality • Disruption of local hydrology • Loss of carbon -rich soils These matters have not been adequately addressed in the application. 6. Cumulative Impact and Overconcentration of Similar Developments There is an existing concentration of similar dumping and/or waste -related activities in the vicinity of the proposed site. It is considered that the cumulative impacts of these developments have not been adequately assessed. The granting of permission for an additional facility would result in an overconcentration of such uses in a rural area and would set an undesirable precedent. The following authorised sites are located in close proximity Daniel King (Ref. WFP-MN-002-02) — approx. 1.5 km Paddy Kearney (Ref. WFP-MN-21-002-01) — approx. 1.5 km John O'Neill (Ref. WFP-MN-23-004-01) — approx. 2 km All access the same local road (L8600), which is of limited capacity. The cumulative impact of HGV movements places additional strain on this network and raises ongoing concerns regarding traffic safety and capacity. 7. Impact on Biodiversity The surrounding area supports wildlife associated with bogland habitats, including protected species such as bats. Increased activity, noise, and habitat disturbance may have a negative impact on biodiversity. These ecological considerations do not appear to have been adequately addressed. 8. Incompatibility with Rural Character The site is located within a rural area characterised by residential and agricultural uses. The proposed development represents an industrial -type use that is not compatible with the established character of the area. Conclusion Accordingly, we respectfully request that Monaghan County Council refuse planning permission for the proposed development on the grounds that it would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would not accord with the objectives of the Monaghan County Development Plan. Yours faithfully, Stephen and Brenda Knoop Mountain View Aughrim Beg Culloville Castleblayney Co. Monaghan Supporting Evidence Photographic evidence is included demonstrating: • Condition of the adjoining road, including potholes and surface deterioration affecting safe access • Damage to boundary fencing and residential landscaping, including recently installed fencing • Site activity including HGV movements, dust generation, and ongoing operations associated with the development Photographic Evidence Schedule (Appendix 1) The following photographic evidence is submitted in support of this objection: Plate 1 — Local Road Condition (L8600) Shows extent of potholing, surface cracking, and general structural deterioration affecting safe passage of vehicles. taw Plate 2 — Local Road Condition (L8600) Further example of road surface degradation along the same stretch, demonstrating cumulative deterioration. Plate 3 — Heavy Goods Vehicle Activity Shows HGV traffic using the local road in proximity to residential properties, highlighting road constraint and safety concerns. r Ii -� a., . .SI J e 7_I F•n V_. Y. +.�1C 17 .... .`_3F}._ n .`'�+`, •1j 111111111 R\ (71/J '* t t Plate 5 — Residential Amenity Impacts Shows condition of front lawn and adjoining property interface affected by vehicle movement and encroachment.