Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2660166 - Planners Report1 MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT File Ref: 26/60166 (Refuse Permission) Applicant: Darren Quinn & Niamh Cronin Development: permission to construct a two storey dwelling house, a single storey domestic garage, wastewater treatment system and percolation area, new gated domestic entrance, boundary fencing, and all associated site works at, Moylemuck, Lisnalong, Co. Monaghan Location: Moylemuck, Lisnalong, Co. Monaghan 1.0 Date of Site Inspection 15/05/2026 1.1 Site Notice & Photos In Order 2 2.0 Site Characteristics/Area • Greenfield subject site with stated area of 0.284Ha. • Site levels within application site fall in a northerly direction • Application site has mature boundaries surrounding the wider field, with additional boundaries to be planted. • Access proposed onto the Local Tertiary Road. 3.0 Site Planning History 08/102 Francis Quinn erect a storey and a half dwelling house, detached domestic garage, sewerage treatment unit with percolation drains, new entrance unto the public road and associated site works Withdrawn 4.0 Consultee/Referral Response EHO: Report dated: 28/05/2026 No Objection, Conditions Fire & Building Control: No report at the time of writing No other Referrals on Planning Application Control Form 5.0 Objections/Representations Received No objections or representations received. 6.0 Pre-planning Meetings No, as per application form 7.0 Planning Assessment 7.1 Proposed Development This is an application for Permission • construct a two storey dwelling house, • a single storey domestic garage, • wastewater treatment system and percolation area, • new gated domestic entrance, • boundary fencing, • all associated site works 3 Proposed Site Layout Proposed Elevations and Floor Plans 4 7.2 Assessment The proposal will be considered against the following policies and objectives contained in the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031; • Section 2.13.2 Category 2 – Remaining Rural Areas • Section 3.15 Rural Housing • Section 6.7 Natura 2000 Sites and Appropriate Assessment (AA) • Section 15.9 Housing in the Rural Area • Section 15.9.1 Rural Character • Section 15.9.2 Site Selection and Design Guidelines • Table 15.3 Guidelines for Siting and Designing a Rural House in the Vernacular Style • Section 15.9.5 Residential Development and Agricultural Buildings • Section 15.10.4 Domestic Garages, Sheds, Ancillary Outbuildings and Car Ports • Section 15.22.3 All Rural Accesses • Section 15.22.4 Landscaping and Boundary Treatment • Section 15.22.5 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems • Section 15.22.7 Surface Water Drainage • Section 15.22.8 Flood Zones and Appropriate Uses • Section 15.23 Road Access Standards Principal of Development • Site is in Category 2 Area so applicant does not have to demonstrate Rural Housing Need • Local Tertiary Road- sight triangle of 50m x 2.4m x 1.05m required as per Section 15.23. • No OPW flood concerns on application site • Not within 100m of third party agricultural buildings • Not Ribbon development • Land ownership consent provided. Appropriate Assessment (Section 6.2 and Policy HCLP 1 Heritage, Conservation & Landscape Policies) 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). Policy HCLP1 of MCDP 2025-2031 states: “No projects giving rise to significant cumulative, direct, indirect or secondary impacts on Natura 2000 sites arising from their size or scale, land take, proximity, resource requirements, emissions (disposal to land, water or air), 5 transportation requirements, duration of construction, operation, decommissioning or from any other effects shall be permitted on the basis of this plan (either individually or in combination with other plans or projects6)”. The site is not located within 15km of Natura 2000 Sites in County Monaghan, namely Sliabh Beagh SPA and Kilroosky Lough Cluster SAC. There are no significant watercourses located within close proximity to the site and no known pathway connectors with the Natura 2000 network. Having regard to cumulative effects of both the proposed development and any other plan or project, it is the opinion of the planning authority that the development is not of a nature or scale to have any significant effects on the integrity of any Natura 2000 sites and therefore a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment is not required in respect of this project. Policy SRP 2 and Section 6.11.3 “Scenic Routes” Policy SRP 2 seeks to protect the scenic quality of lakes by prohibiting development located between a public road and a lake where the development would interrupt a view of the lake or adversely affect its setting or its wildlife habitat. Development may be permitted between a public road and the lakeshore where the development is screened from the lake by existing topography or vegetation. • The Planning Authority note that the proposed dwelling is located within close proximity to a lake. • The distance between the lake and the proposed dwelling is c306m. • Notwithstanding the separation distance, there are views of the lake from the Local Road, and the application site. • In this case, the development is not screened from the lake by existing topography or vegetation, and therefore the proposed development is contrary to Policy SRP 2 and Section 6.11.3 “Scenic Routes” of Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. • Planning Authority recommends refusal of the application. Policy RCP 1 Rural Character Policy and Section 15.9.1 ‘Rural Character’ Policy RCP 1 provides for dwellings in the countryside where they will not cause a detrimental impact or further erode the rural character of an area. RCP 1 advises that “The assessment of the impact of new dwellings in the rural area will be considered from critical views along public roads, laneways, public rights of way and other areas of the public domain”. • The proposed dwelling is to be set back from the public road by c18m. • The application site is roadside, but central within a larger host field. • The site as existing benefits from mature boundaries, with additional planting proposed. • Development proposed is a two-storey dwelling. • Dwelling can be integrated successfully with the retention of existing mature landscaping – condition on this matter. Policy RSDP 1 Rural Housing Siting and Design Policy and Section 15.9.2 ‘Site Selection and Design Guidelines’ Table 15.3 of MCDP 2025-2031 sets out the rural house design policy. This requires specific focus on the design, siting, scale and form of the proposed dwelling. The use of simple shapes, forms and materials which are reflective of the Monaghan vernacular ensure a successful design that will integrate best into the countryside. New rural housing, including contemporary designs, should reflect the traditional vernacular. The Monaghan vernacular includes the following elements: • Traditional dwelling with a linear plan form • Returns located to the rear • Roof with full gables and chimneys located along the ridge line • Elevations with a greater proportion of solid than void • Windows with a vertical emphasis • Use of simple materials 6 Tabe 15.3 Features Guidelines for Siting and Designing a Rural House in the Vernacular Style Site Study The site and/or the location of dwelling within the site should be selected to maximise the benefits of shelter, topography and any existing buildings. The site should use clearly identifiable and established boundaries, such as trees, slopes or other natural features, which separate the site from the surrounding countryside, and offer a suitable degree of enclosure. In addition to the roadside boundary, the site should have a minimum of one natural existing boundary to soften the impact of the development in the landscape. The building should not be located on a site where it would break any ridgeline or shoreline. The site should make use of natural contours of the landscape and be set into the landscape. Sites requiring excessive excavation, filling and/or removal of natural vegetation should be avoided. The site should be set back from the road and aim to retain frontage. Suburban type layouts and gardens should be avoided. Application site is a greenfield site, located along the Local Tertiary road. The proposed dwelling is to be set back from the public road by c18m. The application site is roadside, but central within a larger host field. The site as existing benefits from mature boundaries, with additional planting proposed. Development proposed is a two-storey dwelling. FFL of dwelling and garage: 109.233 Dwelling proposed is c306m south of an existing lake, with views of the lake from both the local road and the application site. Orientation The dwelling should be orientated to maximise daylight and solar gain. Where appropriate, windows on south facing elevations should be arranged to capture the sun’s energy and glazing on north facing elevations should be limited to aid heat conservation. The proposed dwelling is orientated to maximise daylight and solar gain. Scale The size, scale and mass of the building must be appropriate to its setting. A large house should only be located on a well screened site to enable effective integration into its surroundings. Larger houses should be sub-divided into smaller elements of traditional form to avoid bulky structures. The dwelling should have regard to the scale of surrounding buildings. Dwelling is considered to be of a large scale, and appears as a bulky structure, particularly given the proposed height. The site is not elevated and therefore the dwelling is not expected to break ridgeline. Additional landscaping is proposed along the northern and western boundaries. Form The dwelling should be of simple plan form, of modest scale and traditional pitched gables should be used. The external gable depth should generally not exceed 9m or 6.5m for narrow plan form. The roof pitch should normally be 35 to 40-degree pitch except where the gable depth is below 7.5m, then 45 degrees is acceptable. Two storey dwellings should generally not exceed 9m in height above ground level. Any projections or returns should be of simple form and roof pitch. Two-storey dwelling proposed with pitched roof and two-storey porch. Frontage is proposed at 13.6m and External gable depth is c9m. Roof pitch is acceptable, although the roof height is 9.2m. Proportions The design should have a good roof to wall proportion and a high solid to void relationship with greater wall surface area than window or door openings. 7 Features Guidelines for Siting and Designing a Rural House in the Vernacular Style Windows and doors should be simple and of vertical emphasis. A simple, symmetrical arrangement of openings should be employed. Large horizontal windows, picture/feature windows shall be located on elevations not visible from the public domain. High solid to void relationship proposed. Windows of vertical emphasis on the front elevation. Materials Materials and finishes should be traditional to the area and in keeping with the character of the landscape unless the material proposed is matching that of the locality. The use of combinations of materials, excessive ornamentation and non-traditional materials should be avoided. Plastered, render or natural stone finishes are suitable in all rural areas. Brick, cladded stone and pebble dash are not traditional finishes and should be avoided. Natural roof slate which is dark blue/black in colour, is preferable. Nap plaster walls with natural stone to the porch and blue/black roof tiles/ slates proposed. Detailing Chimneys should be centrally located on the ridge with vernacular proportions. Chimneys at the gable end should be flush with the gable. Decorative fascias should be avoided. Porches and conservatories should be of simple design and in proportion to the dwelling. Two chimneys proposed on the front roof plain. Eaves flush external walls Boundary Treatment New frontage boundaries should be reflective of existing roadside boundaries using compatible hedgerow planting, walls, timber fencing and/or dry stonework. Existing roadside hedgerows and ditches should be retained as much as possible. The location of the site entrance should be positioned to achieve the required sight distance with the removal of a minimum extent of existing hedgerow. Unsympathetic fencing, walls and planting should be avoided. All post and rail fencing proposed should be back planted with native hedgerow planting. The site does currently benefit from a mature boundaries, with additional boundaries to be created. Policy DGP 1 Domestic Garages, Sheds, Ancillary Outbuildings and Car Ports Policy and Section 15.10.4 ‘Domestic Garages, Sheds, Ancillary Outbuildings and Car Ports’ Section 15.10.4 of the Development Plan stipulates that domestic garages or ancillary outbuildings ‘should be visually subservient in terms of size, scale and bulk to the main dwelling served and will only be permitted for uses which are ancillary to the main dwelling’. 8 All garage proposals are assessed against criterion (a) to (h) of Policy DGP 1 as set out below. Domestic Garages, Sheds, Ancillary Outbuildings and Car Ports Policy DGP 1 a) The design, size, scale and form of the building/structure and finishes/materials should normally be consistent with the design of the main dwelling on site. • The proposed garage is demarcated on the proposed site layout plan. • Floor plans and elevational drawings have been provided. • The design, form and materials are acceptable and in keeping with the main dwelling. b) The building/structure is normally detached and sited to the side or rear of the house to minimise visual impact from the public road or surrounding landscape. • Proposed garage is to be sited to the rear/side of proposed dwelling. c) The building/structure is used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling and not for any commercial, manufacturing, industrial use or as habitable accommodation. • Structure is to be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling d) Where the total floor area of the building/structure is in excess of 80m2, satisfactory justification shall be provided for its size. • The proposed detached domestic garage is to be c41sqm e) Car ports shall only be permitted where they are incorporated into the design of the dwelling, do not constitute a visual intrusion, and where they are not visible from the public domain. • Car port is not proposed f) The residential amenity in the vicinity of the proposed development will not be compromised. • No residential amenity concerns g) Only one domestic garage shall be permitted for any single dwelling unless the need for a second garage is satisfactorily demonstrated. • One domestic garage proposed. h) Existing surface water drainage is maintained or relocated satisfactorily. • Appropriate drainage being provided as part of the development. Policy RRP 1 Rural Accesses Policy and Section 15.22.3 ‘All Rural Accesses’ and Section 15.23 ‘Road Access Standards’ Policy RRP 1 requires accesses to new developments in the countryside to be positioned to minimise loss of hedgerows and trees, follow alongside existing boundaries/ hedgerows where possible, follow the natural contours of the site and avoid sweeping driveways, and to use existing lanes where practical. Section 15.23 and Table 15.4 of MCDP 2025- 2031 requires all new accesses to be designed well in the interest of safety and convenience of all road users. • The applicant is proposing to access the site via a new access onto the Local Tertiary Road. • The submitted site layout plan demonstrates that visibility splays of 50m can be achieved at the junction with the public road. • Given that the applicants does not own the application site, and has submitted a landowner consent, the land within the visibility splays are not within the ownership of the applicant. • Therefore Appendix 13 Legal Agreements are required and in the absence of same, the applicant has failed to demonstrate control, or the reasonable prospect of acquiring control, of any land required for the provision of the proposed access arrangements. 9 • In this regard the proposed development is contrary to Policy RRP 1 and Section 15.23 “Road Access Standards” of Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. • Taking account of the fundamental concerns with the principal of the development in close proximity to a lake, the Planning Authority recommends refusal of the application. Policy WWTP 1 On-Site Wastewater Treatment Policy and Section 15.22.5 ‘On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems’ The proposal includes the installation of a new foul wastewater treatment system and percolation area as annotated on the proposed site layout plan. The applicant also submitted a “Site Characterisation Form” prepared by Mr Terence Duffy of Horizon Group dated 10/04/2026. • EHO Report dated 28/05/2026 states no objection subject to conditions. • Planning authority satisfied in this regard. Conclusion • The proposed development fails to satisfy Policy SRP2 of Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031, in that the proposed development would adversely affect the setting of the lake. • The proposed development is contrary to Policy RRP 1 and Section 15.23 “Road Access Standards” of Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031, in that the applicant has failed to demonstrate control, or the reasonable prospect of acquiring control, of any land required for the provision of the proposed access arrangements. • Having reviewed the submitted plans and elevations, the Planning Authority has concerns that the proposed dwelling would be contrary to Policy RSDP 1, Section 15.9.2 and Table 15.3 of Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. • Refuse Permission Recommendation It is recommended that Permission be REFUSED for the following reasons: 1. Policy SRP 2 of Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 seeks to protect the scenic quality of lakes by prohibiting development located between a public road and a lake where the development would interrupt a view of the lake or adversely affect its setting or its wildlife habitat. Development may be permitted between a public road and the lakeshore where the development is screened from the lake by existing topography or vegetation. The proposed dwelling is located between a lake and a public road and is not screened from the lake by existing topography or vegetation, and therefore the proposed development would adversely impact on its setting. Accordingly, if permitted as proposed, the development would materially conflict with the Development Plan and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. 2. Section 15.23 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 outlines the safety and convenience requirements for new accesses onto public roads, and states that “Proposals requiring works on third party land must be accompanied by a written legal agreement, in accordance with Appendix 13. This legal agreement and accompanying maps shall be signed by all parties and witnessed by a Solicitor”. The proposed development accesses onto the Local Tertiary Road L-70021-0 where visibility splays of 50 metres x 2.4 metres in both directions, at 1.05 metres above ground level, are required. The submitted Site Layout Plan indicates that works to third-party land would be required, and in the absence of third-party legal agreements, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that clear and unobstructed visibility splays are 10 achievable and that the proposed development will not result in a traffic hazard. The applicant has failed to clearly demonstrate that a new entrance onto the L-70021-0 can be provided in accordance with Section 15.23 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. The proposal is therefore deemed to be unacceptable as it would be contrary to the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. 3. The applicant has failed to fully demonstrate compliance with Policy RSDP 1 and associated Table 15.3 ‘Guidelines for Siting and Designing a Rural House in the Vernacular Style’ of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 by reason of the overall height at 9.2m and the chimneys on the front roof plain. The proposed development would therefore, if permitted, materially conflict with Policy RSDP 1 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. _________________ Catherine Toner Assistant Planner Date 09/06/2026