HomeMy WebLinkAbout2560353 - F.I. Received Doc. - FI Response letter25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission:
Cathal McGlone
Creeve House
Creeve
Castleshane
Co Monaghan
H18 YV05
16 April 2026
Planning Department,
Monaghan County Council,
Dublin Street,
Monaghan
Additional information submission re: Planning application reference: 25/60353: Response to
third-party submission
Dear Sir/Madam,
I refer to your letter of 22 October 2025 requesting Additional Information in relation to our planning
application 25/60353.
In the Additional Information request, the Planning Section has asked me to review the content of the
third-party submission and provide a detailed response to the issues raised.
In preparing my response to the Planning Objection letter from Declan & Lorraine McNamee dated 30
September 2025, I have relied on documents that are publicly available such as planning files. I will also
refer to the Flood Risk Assessment Report requested and provided as part of this Additional Information
request. I will also be providing photographs to help further elucidate my detailed response.
In Ireland, any member of the public has a legal right to participate in the planning process by making a
written submission or observation on a planning application. Under Article 29 of the Planning and
Development Regulations 2001, a submission must be lodged with the relevant local authority within five
weeks of the application's receipt and be accompanied by a statutory fee of €20. These submissions
must focus on material planning considerations—such as traffic hazards, environmental impact, or
consistency with local development plans—rather than personal grievances. Crucially, making a valid
initial submission is generally a prerequisite for a third party to subsequently appeal a planning decision to
An Coimisiún Pleanála (the national appeals board). {ref: www.Gov.ie}
In the Irish planning system, the validity of a submission is primarily determined by procedural compliance
(e.g., timing, fees, and identification) rather than a verification of every factual claim at the outset.
However, there are significant legal and practical consequences if a submission is found to contain false
or untrue information:
1 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission:
● Dismissal for Lack of Substance: An Coimisiún Pleanála (formerly An Bord Pleanála) has the
power to dismiss an appeal if it is deemed to be "vexatious," "frivolous," or "without any real
substance." If a submission's core arguments are based on demonstrably false information, it
may be dismissed under these criteria.
● Focus on Material Planning Grounds: Both local planning authorities and the Commission only
consider "material planning considerations." Irrelevant, personal, or demonstrably incorrect
information that does not relate to proper planning and sustainable development is generally
disregarded during the decision-making process.
● Legal Liability (Defamation): Individuals making submissions are not immune from the law. If a
submission contains false statements that injure a person's reputation, the author can be sued for
defamation.
● Offences for False Declarations: Under the Planning and Development Act 2000 (and the 2024
Act), it is a criminal offence to knowingly or recklessly provide a planning authority with
information that is false or misleading in a material respect, particularly when a statutory
declaration is required. This can lead to fines or imprisonment. {ref: www.Dún
Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council}.
While researching publicly available information within the planning system, my submission will include
written evidence of Mr McNamee’s disrespectful behaviour towards senior personnel and an elected
representative within Monaghan County Council.
In concluding this Additional Information submission, I would ask that the Planning Department will review
all of the following information, photographs and appendices and grant planning permission for my house
application.
Responses to the third party submission:
1. Mr McNamee’s assertions in relation to the bridge and whether the bridge causes flooding
are not true.
● The bridge is fully compliant with planning. This is confirmed by the Monaghan District Court
Court Order dated 30 June 2014: Notice of Dismissal of Enforcement case taken by Monaghan
County Council v Cathal McGlone. The said order is attached at Appendix 1.
● Our Flood Risk expert confirmed that this is not a flood risk area.
● The area where we propose to build the house is not at risk of flooding.
● The bridge has more than ample capacity. I refer to Appendix 2, Appendix 3 and Appendix 4
showing a map of bridges south of our lands, photographs of the conditions and size of the
bridges and photographs of a heavy rain incident in November 2025, where water was flowing
down the L1510 road, whilst our bridge was not at full capacity.
Our Flood Risk Assessment Report shows that this area is not listed as a flood area and the area has
never flooded. Furthermore, this report shows that our proposed site has no risk of flooding.
2 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission:
Our consultants, Coyle Civil & Structural will write under separate cover in relation to the technical
aspects of the Flood Risk report.
2. The responsibility for the house location, design, size, finished floor level and its potential
risk of flooding lies with the McNamees only.
The McNamees state that “the river has travelled and encapsulated our home.”
The Collins English Dictionary definition of “encapsulate” in this context is “to enclose as in a capsule.”
The McNamee Family Residence is 4,645sq ft and 10.275m high.
The river did not encapsulate their home.
4. My proposed house and the McNamee house are not adjacent.
● The distance between our proposed house and Mr McNamee’s is over 80m. That is not defined
as adjacent. A photograph in Appendix 5 demonstrates this fact.
5. Mr McNamee refers to the Monaghan Development Plan 2019 - 2025 regarding impervious
surfaces, run off, pollution etc. Our expert Flood Risk report deals with all these matters in detail.
Mr McNamee makes the argument against his own position as to why his site and house is at risk
of flooding; because of the large extent of impervious surfaces within his site.
6. Mr McNamee attempts to mislead readers that when the river is at maximum capacity, surface
water will be forced towards his home. The fact of the matter, already stated many times, is that
Mr McNamee excavated and lowered the levels of the field in which he built his three storey
house. If he had built a two storey house and raised the finished floor level, he might have
reduced his home’s flood risk.
7. Mr McNamee mentions that the bridge cannot cope with the volume of water and water will go
towards their home; this is not true. In the appendices, a number of photographs of a flooding
incident on 11 November 2025, the water overtops a bridge 300 metres south of my bridge onto
the Braddox Road (L1510). As can be seen, my bridge has sufficient capacity to deal with the
3 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission:
additional water while the road is impassable. However, by the next morning, the road is clear
and the water is gone.
Response to Photograph dated 02.11.22:
Mr McNamee’s photograph shows the river running along the western boundary of the said lands under
this planning application. However, it is important to point out that our proposed site is approximately 20m
above the river level as shown.
Response to Photograph dated 28.10.22:
Response to two photographs dated 30.12.22:
The photographs confirm what Mr McNamee stated earlier, substantial amounts of impervious surfaces
will increase potential flood risk, particularly in low lying areas.
As can be seen from the photographs, the land to the north of their site is at a higher level than their
developed site.
Response to Mr McNamee's final statements on:
● Monaghan County Council senior management
● His concerns in relation to the width of the bridge that accesses my site and his home.
Part (a) Response to separate point in relation to Monaghan County Council senior staff:
Mr McNamee begins his point, “As previously stated, the Monaghan County Council, namely Mr Adrian
Hughes and Mr Donal McElwain are aware of the difficult situation our home is in, in relation to flooding
as is the OPW who provided funds in order to support a flood defence. Therefore, it would be
counterintuitive to allow further development on this land which would pose a further flooding risk to our
home.”
I wish to respond to this specific comment in greater detail:
1. Mr McNamee has never mentioned either person in his submission until this paragraph.
2. The difficult position his house is in has been caused solely by himself, the finished floor level and
the amount of excavation done to complete his development. He has caused his house to be
positioned in, effectively a low lying area compared to the surrounding lands and roads.
3. The OPW provided funding, it is not clear independently whether the flood relief works were
done, if so, no planning application was made.
4. It is also not clear on what basis did OPW grant Mr McNamee a flood risk grant. In the 2
November 2011 email from Adrian Hughes to Mr McNamee, Monaghan County Council refused
his request for a flood relief grant. The email is attached at Appendix 7.
5.
6.
4 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission:
7. In relation to Mr McNamee’s use of the word “counterintuitive”, the definition of which is “contrary
to common sense,” it is not clear what point Mr McNamee is trying to make.
● Is he questioning the ability of Mr Hughes and Mr McElwain to make a decision on our
planning application without his opinion on their ability?
● Is he inferring that my planning application should not be granted permission because he
said so?
● His house is at the lowest point of the surrounding lands and this result is only due to Mr
McNamee’s actions and the scale and positioning of his house.
● Our proposed house is over 80m from his house and our Flood Risk Assessment report
clearly states that our proposed house will have no impact on whether his house will be
flooded or not.
● The flood risk is the responsibility of Mr McNamee due to his positioning by him of his
house, the finished floor level, the massing, the substantial hard standing and build works
which severely restrict rainfall from soakage on his lands.
● Our Flood Report clearly states that there are no records of flooding at this location. Has
all of the meetings, correspondence and noise around this location created by Mr
McNamee since 2011, generated a narrative that this area is a Flood Risk area whilst
there are no official records or reports to confirm Mr McNamee’s assertion?
To bring Mr McNamee’s “contrary to common sense” comment to a conclusion, that no further
development should be allowed “on this land” (I presume he means my land under my ownership and
control and not his site that he purchased in 2007), I urge the planning authority to decide positively to
grant permission for this family dwelling.
Part (b) Response to separate point in relation to Monaghan County Council senior staff:
Mr McNamee in his opposition to my planning application refers to senior management within Monaghan
County Council namely Mr Adrian Hughes and Mr Donal McElwain stating that it would be counterintuitive
to allow further development on this land which would pose a further flooding risk to our home.”
Firstly, I trust in the planning process and in Monaghan County Council’s staff and in particular the named
individuals to process our planning application under all necessary guidelines and legislation.
Mr McNamee’s comments in relation to these individuals may reflect some of his previous dealings with
Monaghan County Council.
Mr McNamee has had disagreements with staff and the named individuals over his perception of the
Council’s lack of support for his flooding concerns.
To put Mr McNamee’s dealing with Monaghan County Council staff in context, I include in my submission
a memo entitled Office Meeting dated 9 July 2013 with the reference 08/276 (Appendix 8). This memo is
on the public planning file of Mr & Mrs McNamee.
The attached minutes of a meeting on 9th July 2013 between Mr McNamee and staff which had to be
ended prematurely due to Mr McNamee’s aggressive outbursts is a public record of Mr McNamee’s
dealings with planning authorities.
5 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission:
The following are direct extracts from the memo below outline Mr McNamee’s behaviour towards officials;
● “Mr McNamee was agitated and interrupted Kieran Gallagher on a number of occasions.”
● “Mr McNamee continued to interrupted (sic) Kieran Gallagher’s presentation, stating loudly that
Kieran was ‘going around in circles.’ The volume and tone of Mr McNamee’s interruptions were
such that they were clearly audible outside the room in Planning Reception.”
● “Mr McNamee ignored this request (to stop interrupting) and continued to shout.”
● “I (Adrian Hughes) immediately advised Mr McNamee that I was terminating the meeting and left
to (sic) room. Kieran Gallagher accompanied me.”
Is Mr McNamee seeking to blame Monaghan County Council for the fact that he lives in a large house
that may be at risk of flooding?
However, it is important to reiterate:
1.
5. The river has always been there. The site survey showed clearly that the river level was 31.0 and
the land levels where the proposed house was to be built, prior to development, ranged from 31.0
to 37.0 in places. Therefore to build a house, garage, surrounding driveways etc, substantial soil
would have to be excavated to lower the level of the building site.
6. The Braddox road L1510 level as per the topographical survey in Appendix 8 is 31.0.
7. The house was completed in July 2011.
8. Shortly after moving into their new house, as per public correspondence, Mr McNamee wrote to
Mr Adrian Hughes, Senior Planner to see what Mr Hughes would do in relation to the potential
flood risk to their home and the planning rules in relation to same.
9. Mr Hughes wrote back that the previous planning application was at FFL 33 and that Mr
McNamee’s house was at 31FFL.
It is not clear if Mr McNamee seeks to blame Monaghan County Council for granting him planning
permission to build the house that he applied for.
Part (c) Response in relation to comments relating to the width of the bridge that accesses my site
and his home:
As a final issue raised by the McNamees, they state that the width of the bridge into the lands and their
house is too narrow where vehicles may meet and have to reverse onto the roadway because they
cannot pass safely.
This is not true.
The facts are:
6 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission:
● The Braddox road L1510 is 5m wide at the section that passes the entrance. In many places
elsewhere on the L1510 road, the road becomes narrower.
● This road is traversed by traffic that can meet and pass by each other without incident.
● Most cars are 1.8m in width, trucks can range between 2.1m to large articulated trucks at 2.55m
wide.
The said bridge is 6m wide.
Please see attached photographs at Appendix 10 showing one car, two cars and one car across the said
bridge with more than ample room for two vehicles to meet on the bridge.
The McNamee family drive two medium sized Volkswagen SUVs which, according to Volkswagen’s own
specification databases are 1.839m wide (2,099m width with mirrors.
Each McNamee garage door width is 2.805m, therefore if one of the cars can fit in the garage with
700mm room to manoeuvre, it is a fact that two Volkswagen medium sized SUVs can meet on the bridge
with 1.8m available to manoeuvre.
There is ample room (1.8m width remaining) on the bridge for both McNamee cars to meet and safely
pass each other.
In fact, three vehicles could meet on the bridge with their mirrors retracted.
Conclusion:
As part of the planning process, Monaghan County Council has requested me to respond to the third
party submission which objects to my seeking planning permission for a single storey dwelling on lands
that me and my family have owned since 1978, over 48 years.
As outlined in my submission, the McNamees have sought to blame lots of parties for the potential flood
risk to their home. However, the factual position is;
●
As the reader can see, the McNamees made their own decisions and the responsibility for those
decisions lie solely with them.
I would hope that the Additional Information submission together with reports from Coyle Civil & Structural
will satisfy the Planning Section that our proposed house will have no adverse effect on the third party
that is objecting to my planning permission application.
7 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission:
I would ask Monaghan County Council Planning Section to grant permission for my proposed house
under reference number 25/60353.
Yours sincerely,
Cathal McGlone
8 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission:
Appendices:
1. Monaghan District Court Order dated 30 June 2014: Notice of Dismissal of Enforcement case
taken by Monaghan County Council v Cathal McGlone.
2. Google Map extract showing location of bridges south of my lands.
3. Photographs of nearby bridges.
4. Photographs of the Braddox Road (L1510) and bridges during a heavy rain incident on 11
November 2025.
5.
6. Photograph illustrating the estimated 80m distance our proposed house is from the McNamee
house.
7. Extract from McNamee planning file 08/276: Emails dated 2 November 2011 and 26 October
2011 between Adrian Hughes and Declan McNamee.
8. Extract from McNamee planning file 08/276: Office Meeting memo dated 9 July 2013 between
Adrian Hughes, Kieran Gallagher, Cllr David Maxwell and Declan McNamee.
9. Topography survey of lands as part of McGlone planning application 06/1680.
10. Photographs showing two cars on the bridge at the entrance to my site.
9 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
Appendix 1 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
Appendix 2 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
Appendix 3 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
Bridge 1: My bridge; view north
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
Bridge 2 (i), (i), (iii) view north
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
Bridge 3: view north
Bridge 3: view adjacent Bridge 3: view south
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
Bridge 4: view south
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
Bridge 5: Junction of L1510 with L55002; view south
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
Appendix 4 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
Appendix 5 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
Appendix 6 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
Appendix 7 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
Appendix 8 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
Appendix 9 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
Appendix 10 RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026
25/60353 Cathal McGlone: Additional Information submission: Photographs
RECEIVED: 08/05/2026