HomeMy WebLinkAbout2560514 - Planners Report1
MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
File Ref: 25/60514
Applicant: Philomena McLoughlin
Advertised Development Description: Permission for demolition of existing rear extension,
removal of existing roof, raising of external walls, construction of new raised roof,
construction of new two-storey extension to the rear, demolition of rear outbuilding,
internal and external additions and alterations, and all associated site works.
Location: Drumillard Big, Castleblayney.
Characteristics of Site/Area
▪ Dilapidated residential property on the outskirts of Castleblayney.
▪ Part of a terrace of seven small cottages built in the early nineteenth century converted
to larger dwellings at a later date.
▪ Building was surveyed by the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage (NIAH) – reg
number 41308006.
▪ Adjoining house(s) is a protected structure.
Relevant Planning History
Permission granted previously to raise existing roof, erect an extension to rear and renovate
dwelling house under planning file number 18/77.
Consultation
Municipal District (MD) Engineer: No objections.
Uisce Éireann/Water Services: No response.
An Taisce: No response.
DHLGH: No response.
Road Design Section: No response.
Environment Section: No objections.
Appropriate Assessment
Under Article 6(3) of the EU Habitats Directive and Regulation 30 of SI no. 94/1997
“European Communities (Natural Habitats) Regulations” (1997) any plan or project which
has the potential to significantly impact on the integrity of a Natura 2000 site (i.e. an SAC or
SPA) must be subject to an Appropriate Assessment. This requirement is also detailed under
Section 177(U) of the Planning and Development Acts (2000-2010).
The site is removed from any Natura 2000 sites and there are no significant pathway
connectors in the vicinity.
Having regard to the context and the development as proposed, and the activities associated
with the development proposal both during and post construction works, it is taken that it is
not necessary for an Appropriate Assessment to be carried out in relation to this
development.
2
Planning Assessment
Section 15.10.1 of the County Development Plan 2025-2031 concerns alterations and
extensions to dwellings. Proposals to alter or extend a dwelling will be considered on their
individual merits, with the main considerations being that of design and the degree of
impact on existing and adjoining properties. In this regard it is noted that:
➢ The proposed alterations and extension are virtually identical to those granted
previously under 18/77. The applicant previously highlighted/reaffirmed the fact that
the building is not a protected structure and that, in her opinion, the proposed
restoration would be sympathetic and reflective of the requirements of modern living.
➢ As per the submitted drawings, it is reasonably considered that the development would
not have a material negative impact upon the residential amenities of adjoining
dwellings or their private open space.
Objections/Submissions/Observations
Objections received from David Boyd (neighbour):
➢ Objector states that notwithstanding the date, the site notice was erected late.
➢ Claims the current proposal is substantially similar to previous applications – suggesting
repeated applications are being used as a delay tactic.
➢ Objection asserts that part of the development site includes land belonging to David
Boyd.
➢ Objector states the applicant’s property has been neglected for many years, with
boundary maintenance issues and deteriorating structures.
➢ Proposed extension would introduce new windows directly overlooking Boyd’s private
rear garden, causing loss of privacy.
➢ Objector asserts the scale/massing of the extension would overshadow his garden and
reduce natural light.
➢ Submission includes an extract from the Monaghan County Development Plan indicating
Lakeside Cottages have designations as structures of local importance, implying a
requirement for sensitive development.
Roadside view-in
3
Conclusions
Further Information (FI) is needed concerning the objections received. In this regard it is
noted that:
➢ The site notice was in place and correctly dated on the day of inspection.
➢ Agreed – the current proposal is substantially similar to the previous application.
➢ As per the info, it would appear that part of the development site includes land
belonging to David Boyd.
➢ Agreed – the property is in a state of notable disrepair.
➢ The extension is modest and the windows are rear‑facing. It is reasonably considered
that the development would not detrimentally impact on the residential amenity of
David Boyd’s property.
➢ The structure is not protected.
Recommendation
To request FURTHER INFORMATION:
1. Objections to your application have been received.
In the interest of clarity and to allow for a fully informed decision, please review the
objections and submit details, which suitably confirm (i) your ownership of the subject site
and, (ii) your certainty in law that you would have the sufficient rights in the land to carry
out the permission.
Ben Clerkin
Planner
16/02/2026
4
Further Information (FI)
A formal response was received on the 15/05/2026.
FI Planning Assessment
A third-party objection was received raising concerns in relation to (i) site ownership, (ii)
impact on residential amenity, (iii) the condition and historical neglect of the property, and
(iv) the potential impact on the character of the terrace.
In response to the FI request, the applicant has submitted a Land Registry compliant map
together with a letter from their solicitor confirming that the applicant is the legal owner of
the entire application site, including the area disputed by the objector, and that they have
sufficient legal rights to carry out the proposed development. Having regard to the
documentation submitted, the Planning Authority is satisfied that the issue of site ownership
has been adequately addressed for planning purposes. Any dispute in relation to title or
boundaries is a civil matter and does not fall within the remit of the Planning Authority.
In relation to residential amenity, the proposed extension is located to the rear of the
dwelling and is of a modest scale, broadly consistent with that previously permitted under
18/77. The proposed window openings are typical and would not give rise to significant
overlooking or loss of privacy beyond that normally expected in a built-up terrace context.
Furthermore, having regard to the orientation, scale and separation distances, it is not
considered that the development would result in undue overshadowing or loss of light to
adjoining properties.
With respect to the condition of the property, it is acknowledged that the house is in a state
of disrepair; however, the proposed development will facilitate the refurbishment and
continued residential use of the structure, which is considered a positive intervention.
Re the character of the terrace, whilst the building was surveyed by the NIAH, it is not a
protected structure. The proposed works are consistent with previously permitted
development on the site and are not considered to adversely affect the character of the
terrace.
Conclusions
▪ The Further Information submitted has satisfactorily addressed the concerns raised in
the third-party objection; a grant of permission is recommended.
▪ A development contribution is not due as the additional floor area is <40sqm.
5
Recommendation
That Permission is GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
1. Associated surface water shall be disposed of within the site and shall not be allowed to
discharge onto the public road or adjoining properties.
Reason: In the interest of proper planning and orderly development.
2. Construction works on-site shall be limited to the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to
Friday; with no works on Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays.
Reason: In the interest of residential amenity.
3. The developer shall ensure that all works are carried out in a manner that does not
damage adjoining properties and that all boundary treatments are made good following
completion of works.
Reason: In the interests of residential amenity and orderly development.
4. The development shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the plans and documents
submitted on the 18/12/2025 as amended on the 15/05/2026, except as may otherwise be
required in order to comply with the above conditions.
Reason: In the interest of proper planning and sustainable development.
Ben Clerkin
Planner
29/05/2026