HomeMy WebLinkAbout2660174 - Appeal NotificationOur Case Number: PL -501714 -MN -26
Planning Authority Reference Number: 2660174
Planning Department
Monaghan County Cc
Council Offices
No.1 Dublin Street
Monaghan
Co. Monaghan
Date: 20 July 2026
MON. co. co.
ANN NGG SECT ON
21 JUL. 7026
An
Coimisiun
Pleanala
Re: RETENTION PERMISSION for pergola structure and all associated site works.
75 Station View, Kilnacloy, Monaghan
Dear Sir/Madam,
Enclosed is a copy of an appeal under the Planning and Development Act, 2000, (as
amended).
1. The planning authority is required to forward specified documents to the Commission under
the provisions of section 128 and section 37(1)(b) of the Planning and Development Act,
2000, (as amended). You are requested to submit these pilot digital planning application
documents to An Coimisiun Pleanala electronically. The documents are to be uploaded
on our digital portal as agreed with the training from the LGMA.
Please upload, within a period of 2 weeks beginning on the date of this letter, the following
documents:-
(i) a copy of the planning application made to the planning authority and a copy of any
drawings, maps (including ordnance survey number) particulars, evidence, a copy of any
environmental impact statement, other written study or further information received or obtained
by your authority in accordance with regulations under the Acts. If practicable, the original of
any drawing with coloured markings should be provided or a coloured copy,
(ii) a copy of any technical or other reports prepared by or for the planning authority in relation
to the application,
(iii) a certified copy of the relevant Manager's Order giving the decision of the planning authority,
(iv) a copy of the notification of decision given to the applicant,
(v) particulars of the applicant's interest in the land or structure, as supplied to the planning
authority,
Teil Tel (01) 858 8100
Glao Aitiuil LoCall 1890 275 175
Facs Fax (01) 872 2684 64 Sraid Maoilbhride 64 Marlborough Street
Laithrean Greasain Website www.pleanala.ie Baile Atha Cliath 1 Dublin 1
Riomhphost Email communications@pleanala.ie 001 V902 D01 V902
(vi) a copy of the published notice and a copy of the text of the site notice erected on the land or
structure.
(vii) a copy of requests (if any) to the applicant for further information relating to the application
under appeal together with copies of reply and documents (if any) submitted in response to
such requests,
(viii) a copy of any written submissions or observations concerning the proposed development
made to the planning authority,
(ix) a copy of any notices to prescribed bodies/other authorities and any responses to same,
(x) a copy of any exemption application/certificate within Part V of the 2000 Act, (as amended),
applies,
(xi) a copy of the minutes of any pre -planning meetings,
(xii) One electronic copy of any Environmental Impact Assessment Report received by
the Planning Authority as per Article 97(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations,
2001, (as amended).
2. To ensure that the Commission has a full and complete set of the material specified above
and that it may proceed with full consideration of the appeal, please certify that the planning
authority holds no further material relevant to the case coming within the above list of items by
signing the certification on page 3 of this letter and returning the letter to the Commission.
3. In addition to the documents mentioned above, please supply the following:- Particulars
and relevant documents relating to previous decisions affecting the same site or relating to
applications for similar development in near proximity. "History" documents should include;
a) Certified Manager's Order,
b) the site location, site layout maps, all plans and
c) particulars and all internal reports.
Copies of I -plan sheets are not adequate.
Where your records show that a decision was appealed to the Commission, it would be helpful
if you would indicate the Commission's reference.
Submissions or observations by the planning authority.
4. As a party to the appeal you may, under section 129 of the 2000 Act, (as amended), make
submissions or observations in writing to the Commission in relation to the appeal within a
period of 4 weeks beginning on the date of this letter.
Please note any submission/observation you wish to make to the Commission CANNOT
be uploaded to Sharefile. These submissions can be made in writing to the Commission
or can be emailed to appeals@pleanala.ie within the required timeframe.
Any submissions or observations received by the Commission outside of that period shall not
be considered, and where none have been validly received, the Commission may determine the
appeal without further notice to you.
Contingency Submission
5. If the decision of your authority was to refuse permission, you should consider whether
the authority wishes to make a contingency submission to the Commission as regards
appropriate conditions which, in its view, should be attached to a grant of permission should the
Commission decide to make such a grant. In particular, your authority may wish to comment
on appropriate conditions which might be attached to a permission in accordance with
section 48 and/or 49 of the 2000 Planning Act, (as amended), (Development / Supplementary
Development Contributions) including any special condition which might be appropriate under
section 48(2)(c) of the Act.
Any such contingency submission, in circumstances which your authority decided to refuse
permission, would be without prejudice to your authority's main submission in support of its
decision.
Please quote the above appeal reference number in any further correspondence.
If you have any queries in the meantime, please contact the undersigned officer of the
Commission at appeals@pleanala.ie.
I hereby certify that the planning authority has complied with section 128 and section 37(1)(b) of
the 2000 Act, (as amended), and that all material relevant to (PL -501714 -MN -26) the request at
I on page 1 of this letter has been forwarded.
Signed:
Print:( )
Date:
Yours faithfully,
Verity Taylor
Administrative Assistant
Digital BP07 Enclosures
Make a Planning Appeal
Direct URL: httos://forms.aov.ie/en/68e6334b054d8f2739f8ad5b
Response ID
Date submitted
Check if you can appeal to An Coimisiun Pleanala
6a58dde4af3fc2af99f6bd
16/07/2026
AN COIMISION PLEANALA
LOG-
1 6 J U L 2026
1. What type of appeal are you making? First -party appeal (I lodged the original application to the planning
authority)
2. Select the statement that applies to you I am an agent acting on behalf of the appellant
3. During the appeal we will post/email information and Items to the The agent acting on behalf of the appellant or prescribed body
appellant or to the appellant's agent. For this appeal, who should we write
to?
4. Throughout the appeal process, we may Issue correspondence to the
Yes
appellant/agent as selected above by email. Please confirm that you are
satisfied to receive correspondence by email
Appeal type
"This section will determine the type of appeal you wish to make and calculate the fee involved. If you qualify for the reduced fee, only that amount will
be charged."
5. Is your appeal solely under Section 48 and/or Section 49 of the
No
Planning and Development Acts?
6. Are you appealing against a non -financial condition that has been
Yes
attached to a permission by the planning authority?
7. Does your appeal include retention?
Yes
8. Does your appeal relate to commercial development?
No
9. Does your appeal or application include an Environmental Impact
No
Assessment Report (EIAR) or Natura Impact Statement (NIS)?
10. Do you wish to request an oral hearing?
No
11. Please confirm the following fee details are correct:
Yes
Appellant/company details
"This section is for details of the person/company who is making the appeal. If
you are an agent submitting an appeal on behalf of a person/company,
please include their details on this page. You can submit your agent details on the next page if applicable"
12. Appellant's full name/Company name
Gulling Liu
13. Is the appellant/company's address in the Republic of Ireland?
Yes
14. Address
75 STATION VIEW
KILNACLOY
MONAGHAN
H18X0F6
Ireland
15. Is there more than one appellant associated with this appeal?
No
'Please be advised that An Coimisiun Pleanala will only correspond with one appellant throughout the appeal process. If you wish to include further
appellants on the appeal you may do so in your grounds to appeal document.
If the appeal is a third party appeal, you must ensure that you have a planning authority submission acknowledgement letter for each appellant listed. This
must be uploaded with your appeal documents.`
Agent's details
16. Agent's full name/Company name
Ventres Global Trade Limited
17. Is your address In the Republic of Ireland?
Yes
18. Address
APARTMENT 53
THE STRAND
149 NORTH STRAND ROAD
DUBLIN 3
DUBLIN
D03PN77
Ireland
19. Phone number
+353852156423
Details about the proposed development
"This section asks for details about the planning authority decision you wish to appeal"
20. Planning authority
Monaghan County Council
21. Planning authority register reference number
26/60174
22. Address of proposed development
75 STATION VIEW
KILNACLOY
MONAGHAN
H18XOF6
Ireland
Grounds for appeal
23. Attachment describing the grounds of your appeal (planning reasons
Ground of appeal.pdf - Virus scan flagged the file as clean
and arguments)
"You can also attach further supporting materials on the next page"
Supporting material
If you wish you can include supporting materials with your appeal. Supporting
materials include photographs, plans, surveys, drawings, technical guidance
documents and so on.
Please note An CoimisiOn Pleanala will receive a complete copy of documents/drawings/maps that were submitted at planning authority stage. When
submitting supporting material, please only include new documents. (This does
not apply to third party appeals where we will always require a copy of your
planning authority submission acknowledgement letter.)
24. Supporting material 1
75 stationview drawings.pdf - Virus scan flagged the file as clean
25. Supporting material 2
75view station proposed appeal statement,pdf - Virus scan flagged the file
as clean
If you have added attachments, submitting the form may take a few moments. Thanks for your patience.
Ground 1— Mischaracterisation of the Development
The Planning Authority has incorrectly characterised the retained pergola as an
enclosed domestic extension. The structure is an ancillary garden feature designed to
provide sheltered outdoor amenity space and does not create additional habitable
accommodation or enclosed residential floor area.
Its planning impacts are therefore materially different from those of a conventional
residential extension, and the assessment should have been undertaken on that basis.
Ground 2— Incorrect Application of Policy AEDP1
The Planning Authority has adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of Policy AEDP1
of the Monaghan County Development Plan.
The proposal does not give rise to any demonstrable harm to residential amenity and
does not adversely affect the character of the established residential area.
In particular, the development does not result in:
• overlooking;
• overshadowing;
• loss of daylight or sunlight;
• loss of privacy;
• overbearing impact on neighbouring properties.
Accordingly, the proposal is consistent with the objectives of Policy AEDP1.
Ground 3 —Visual Impact
The Planning Authority concludes that the design and appearance of the retained
pergola are visually unacceptable.
However, the Planner's Report contains no detailed architectural assessment to
support this conclusion and does not demonstrate how the proposal materially harms
the visual character of the area.
The retained pergola remains clearly subordinate to the existing dwelling and only one
side elevation is visible from the public realm.
Furthermore, should the Board consider that improvements to the appearance of the
existing side screening are desirable, the Appellant is willing to replace the existing
uPVC side panels with materials that complement the existing boundary fence or with
another visually appropriate screening material, thereby further enhancing its
integration within the surrounding residential environment.
Ground 4- Private Open Space
The Planning Authority has concluded that the proposal results in an unacceptable
reduction in private open space.
The Appellant submits that this assessment places disproportionate emphasis on the
quantitative area occupied by the pergola without considering the continued
functionality and amenity value of covered outdoor space.
The retained pergola continues to provide usable private amenity space for everyday
domestic activities including outdoor seating, recreation and sheltered drying of
clothes.
The proposal therefore does not result in any unacceptable loss of residential amenity.
Ground 5 —Works Outside the Residential Curtilage
The second refusal reason relates to elements of external works alleged to be located
outside the residential curtilage.
The Appellant submits that this matter concerns clarification of the extent of the
retention application rather than a matter of planning principle.
Should the Board consider that any individual element falls outside the applicant's
ownership or should not form part of the retention permission, that matter could readily
be addressed by excluding that element or by imposing an appropriate condition, rather
than refusing the application in its entirety.
Ground 6 —Proportionality
The refusal of retention permission is disproportionate when considered against the
limited planning consequences of the development.
The proposal:
• remains subordinate to the existing dwelling;
• is domestic in character;
• gives rise to no significant environmental effects;
• causes no demonstrable harm to neighbouring residential amenity.
Any residual concerns regarding external appearance could reasonably be addressed
by condition rather than by refusal.
The Appellant respectfully submits that the Planning Authority failed to undertake an
appropriate planning balance and that the proposal should therefore be granted
retention permission, subject to such conditions as the Board considers appropriate.
APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL OF RETENTION PERMISSION
Planning Authority:
Monaghan County Council
Planning Reference:
26/60174
Applicant:
Ms Guiling Liu
Site Address:
75 Station View, Kilnacloy, Monaghan
This Appeal Statement has been prepared on behalf of Ms Guiling Liu in support of
an appeal against the decision of Monaghan County Council dated 19 June 2026,
refusing retention permission under Planning Reference 26/60174.
The appeal relates to:
Retention of an attached pergola structure to the side and rear of the existing
dwelling.
Retention of associated external works, including areas of artificial grass. And
Associated site works.
The Appellant respectfully submits that the Planning Authority has mischaracterised
the nature of the development, has applied Policy AEDP1 in an overly restrictive
manner and has failed to undertake a balanced assessment of the actual planning
impacts arising from the proposal.
It is therefore respectfully requested that An Coimisiun Pleanala set aside the
decision of the Planning Authority and grant retention permission, subject to any
conditions considered appropriate.
2. Purpose of this Appeal
This appeal is not based upon a disagreement with the objectives of the Monaghan
County Development Plan.
Rather, the appeal concerns the manner in which those objectives have been
interpreted and applied to the particular circumstances of this case.
The Planning Authority concludes that the proposal:
is visually unacceptable;
• constitutes an enclosed extension;
results in an unacceptable loss of private open space; and
includes works outside the applicant's residential curtilage.
The Appellant respectfully submits that these conclusions are either unsupported by
objective evidence or are capable of being satisfactorily addressed through
clarification and revised documentation.
Accordingly, the refusal represents a disproportionate response to what is, in
planning terms, a modest domestic development.
3. Description of the Existing Site
The appeal site comprises an existing detached two -storey dwelling located within
the established residential development of Station View, Kilnacloy, Monaghan.
The dwelling forms part of a modern housing estate characterised by detached and
semi-detached family houses, generous rear gardens and a consistent suburban
residential character.
The site is fully established as residential and benefits from:
off-street parking;
established boundary treatments;
private rear amenity space;
existing landscaping.
No Protected Structures, Recorded Monuments or Architectural Conservation Areas
are affected by the proposal.
4. Description of the Development
The appeal relates exclusively to retention permission.
No additional residential accommodation is proposed.
The development comprises:
1) retention permission of the attached pergola structure to the side and rear of the
existing dwelling house 2) and associated works carried out outside the curtilage of
the dwelling house together with all associated site works at 75 Station View
Kilnacloy Monaghan.
The structure is intended solely as an ancillary garden feature to improve the
enjoyment of the existing dwelling.
It is not intended to function as additional habitable accommodation.
5. Response to the Planning Authority's Assessment
The Planning Authority's assessment proceeds on the basis that the retained
structure should be regarded as an "enclosed extension" to the dwelling.
The Appellant respectfully submits that this characterisation is fundamental to the
refusal and requires careful examination.
Whether the proposal should properly be regarded as an enclosed domestic
extension or as an ancillary external garden structure materially affects the planning
assessment that follows.
The Board is therefore respectfully requested to consider the actual physical
characteristics and planning function of the structure rather than relying solely upon
its description within the Planning Authority's report.
'.1
j iiflfllfill
�fi��lll
6. Response to Refusal Reason No. 1
6.1 Characterisation of the Structure
The Planning Authority considers the proposal to constitute an enclosed extension
resulting in additional residential floor space.
The Appellant respectfully submits that this conclusion is not adequately supported
by the submitted drawings or by the functional use of the structure.
The retained pergola is ancillary to the existing dwelling and is intended to provide
sheltered outdoor amenity space.
Unlike a conventional domestic extension, it does not introduce additional bedrooms,
living accommodation or enclosed residential floor area.
Accordingly, the planning impacts associated with the proposal differ significantly
from those normally associated with residential extensions.
6.2 Scale and Design
The retained structure remains visually subordinate to the existing dwelling.
Its ridge height is significantly lower than the principal roof.
The existing dwelling clearly remains the dominant built form on the site.
The Planning Authority concludes that the form and materials are not in keeping with
the dwelling.
However, the report provides no detailed architectural analysis explaining precisely
why the proposal is considered unacceptable.
No assessment is provided regarding:
• proportional relationship;
architectural hierarchy;
• visual integration;
• streetscape impact;
• long-distance views.
In the absence of such analysis, the conclusion is largely subjective.
6.3 Residential Amenity
Importantly, the Planning Authority identifies no adverse impacts arising in respect
of: overlooking; overshadowing; daylight; sunlight; dominance; privacy.
The proposal therefore gives rise to no demonstrable harm to neighbouring
residential amenity. Only one side elevation of the pergola is visible from the public
realm. Should the Board consider that the appearance of the existing uPVC side
screening is not fully compatible with the surrounding streetscape or the existing
boundary treatment, the Appellant is willing to replace the uPVC panels with
materials that match the existing fence, thereby improving visual integration and
ensuring a more harmonious appearance within the public realm.
7. Private Open Space
The Planning Authority concludes that the proposal results in an unacceptable
reduction in private open space.
The Appellant accepts that adequate private amenity space is an important planning
consideration.
However, the assessment contained within the Planner's Report appears to assume
that the entire footprint of the pergola no longer contributes towards usable
residential amenity.
This assumption is not fully explained.
Covered outdoor spaces continue to provide an important recreational and functional
role within residential gardens and are commonly used for outdoor dining, family
activities and sheltered amenity.
Accordingly, the quality and functionality of the remaining private open space should
be assessed alongside its quantitative area.
The Appellant respectfully submits that the Planner's Report places disproportionate
emphasis upon numerical area calculations without adequately considering the
continuing amenity function of the retained external space.
8. Response to Refusal Reason No. 2
The second refusal reason concerns external works located outside the residential
curtilage.
The Appellant acknowledges that greater clarity could have been provided regarding
the precise extent of the external works proposed for retention.
However, this issue is capable of resolution through revised drawings or clarification
of ownership boundaries.
Should the Board consider that any element lies outside the applicant's legal
ownership, that matter could be addressed by excluding that element from any grant
of permission rather than refusing the application in its entirety.
The Appellant therefore respectfully submits that the second refusal reason concerns
matters of clarification rather than matters of planning principle.
9. Planning Balance
When considered as a whole, the proposal:
remains subordinate to the existing dwelling;
does not adversely affect neighbouring residential amenity;
does not materially alter the character of the surrounding estate;
remains domestic in nature;
gives rise to no significant environmental impacts.
The proposal should therefore be assessed proportionately, having regard to its
limited planning consequences.
10. Conclusion
For the reasons set out in this Appeal Statement, the Appellant respectfully submits
that the Planning Authority has adopted an unduly restrictive interpretation of Policy
AEDP1 and has not fully considered the actual planning impacts of the retained
development.
The Appellant respectfully requests that An Coimisiun Pleanala:
Allow the appeal;
Set aside the decision of Monaghan County Council;
Grant retention permission, subject to such conditions as the Board considers
appropriate.
z
p
CD
DC
a
0
C4
cT
O
7
Ci7
C
01
01
ti
m
C
n
m
0
o
m
C
n
=
-V
o
-.- m
CD
:
m
III
Z
N
Z
3
OCD
h
ro
>
y
x =1
o
ww
Cn
_O
a?
O
o
_0 CD
D
N N
rn n
r
=
O
0
N i+
mCD
V 3
O
"
x
Ol
Ul O
22
O
m
a
N
00
fA
IA.
— —
—
m
c
(D
I"' �''
W A
m
O
II
W W
D
w 0
O
o
0
Cn
cn
O
CD
O
p
rn e+
v
A
N
to
W
m
O
N
O
01
%
a
+
�
2
.
I
I
11111111
.=�
x
.�z
®
$
/
/ \
/
0
CD
rD
3 \ /
(D�
7
= n
§
/ \
0
_
o I.
&
§
@
O
\
m E =
a
LI,°
G y 2
7 »
yqo
/
w CD
O
a
2
�
S2
\
\
q
/ \
CD C
-
! <
C)
---
3M
rn
}§
r
/
o
Li/
�
\9G
n
§
�@
\]
/
\
<\
E
E\
)
)
\
O'
2
N N �
h 0 CD
(D , ,
0) T,
;
c o CD
O
(D
ON-.
CD --3
(�D
f�D
h
- 0
7
01
to
�
O O
rt O 0.
(n n O
DJ O
El rr
O
_* O
r+ d
0 N N
CD
N
Q N
O
O
F (D
N C
O (D
V n
I8350
O (D
rt
3651
3
N
3
4292
709
N
A
T
W
y
!!
1661
/
_____
_______
2 50
o
X 4340 3
1 L U
o d
v,
1690
}
~
l
❑
2111
A a "
t
�t
3 g
lD
O
C3-
V
ZG
Q
O
3507
2494
6101
iiiii
__
f
"
m
__
H•
0
a
t7
m
0
❑
_-��_,,•s
-�-y,�-_ _ ::=
__. r -gin -
�».
� ._..-
C
N
7 CD S H
(
Cl)
-
n
N _O
n
o
�o
- -
O
O (p D
N fD
m
m
C)
m ro
r+
rt
Cm)
3 0
-a
_(
z
-(
_
Q4
O N
3
(D
O
y N
0 1 0
a CD
NO C 7
—h
N
CD
CD
oa°
(D rt
O
CD
(D 3
T
�
C]
S
V
0'R
m
X(n
r
O
m
Cu
O
m
=
O
o
o
O
O
0
CD
Co
O
Co
0
b
0
O
`J
-
[
C)
v
_
-i
Y
O
w
-
3
C- C)
m
Coorn
Coo
C)
_- (D
01
_
m
—0
z
CD
m
--
F
• (I)
00
0 o
m
C7
o
O
o
CD
O•.—
a
a in
0x0
C
n
V
Vii
CoO1
C)
C
O
(D
r
N
m
C7
t•%i
(p
o
O
r'r
r
O
OO
Cn
to
N
CA
C�
o
o —
G
c
O
-
O
e -F
m
CD
O
is
1 �lul
lam_ Mr
�J
m
m
x
x
N
N_
Co
CO
O
O
C
�_
CT
CD
CD
CO
CD
N
N
Q
Q
C
C
O
O
it
[2
CI)
!n
m
x
N
CD
C)
0
O
CD
CD
;17
0
O
CD
C/)
2856
CC
A
DC
rio
CD
CC
rio
N
O
CD
DC
(11
Di
O
CD
0
�r O
of �M
3 0 3
N
Ill
O (D
(D
O < :!: __N O
I-,
� l
0
__ LIE
Q 0 CoJ
[Tfl EII
CD
o ;
H 3050 200 2856
I 876
3050 2800 286
5
8706
[%7
m m m m m
CD Cl) C' X X X
Cl)3 Cl) CD Cl)
3
m � 0 C) D C)
.-.•v (D0 0 0 0 0 0
3 CD C 3 C C 3
CD O- O S O 0
td S N (n (D Ca c N
0" 0
y O C 3 CD 0 CD CD 0
0 O_ a. a-
-
O
DC " C C C =
O
rnm C_ CD CD m
N 0 0 0
3 O O 3
Q O
N (n N
N 8
(DO 3 C))
O
o - CD
m 3 (•
m
<ciq
m m cv» G)
z N
m m
r+ r
< (D C
rn = o
N
aO
N