Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2560309 - Planners ReportMONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT File Ref: 25/60309 Applicant: Gallinagh Poultry Farms Ltd Development Description: Planning permission for the infilling of lands with imported inactive or inert waste (app. 6220m³) to a maximum depth of 2.4m over 0.80Ha, accessed off existing entrance, finished with topsoil and grassed over on completion, together with all ancillary & associated site works Location: Newgrove Monaghan Co. Monaghan Site notice in place Aerial view of site Characteristics of Site and area The site comprises a roadside plot of land measuring 0.809 hectares in size located along local tertiary road 16303. The site slopes downwards from northwest to the southeast. The site of the proposed development is located within the townland of Newgrange, just outside the development limit of Monaghan Town. Roaside view of site from existing entrance to site Relevant Planning History 19/409: Permission for the infilling of lands with imported inactive or inert waste (approximately 6,220 cubic metres) to a maximum depth of 2.4 metres over 0.80 hectares, accessed off existing entrance, finished with topsoil and grassed over, together with all ancillary and associated site works. Refused for the following reason; 1. ‘Policy FMP2 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2019-2025 seeks “to restrict development in areas susceptible to flooding except where (a) the proposed development can be justified on strategic grounds, (b) the flood risk can be managed to an acceptable degree and without increasing flood risk beyond the site itself, and (c) appropriate and detailed mitigation measures can be implemented to remove/minimise flood effects.” Furthermore, Policy FLP2 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2019-2025 requires that “it must be demonstrated that any mitigation measures proposed will not exacerbate flood risk in the wider area.” The Office of Public Works (OPW) Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) maps indicate that the eastern half of the proposed site is vulnerable to pluvial flooding. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment notes that the proposed development would result in the displacement of flood water storage capacity from the site thus increasing flood risk beyond the site area. This issue has not been satisfactorily addressed within the submitted flood risk assessment as no appropriate or detailed mitigation has been submitted to remove or minimise any flood effect. In addition the recommendation to install head wall screen cages to the existing pipe infrastructure could not be undertaken given the location of the pipe outside the site area and within third party ownership Therefore, to permit the development as proposed could result in the creation or exacerbation of flood risk outside the site which would be contrary to Policies FMP2 and FLP2 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2019-2025 and would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.’ Consultations Environment Section: Additional information requested. Inland Fisheries: No objections, subject to a 10metre buffer zone either side of any watercourse and compliance with ‘Protection of fisheries during Construction Works in and adjacent to Waters’ document. Biodiversity Officer: No response Heritage Officer: No response. Representations/Objections One letter of objection received from Dorothy and Joseph Gilliland of Vale Park Farms. Issues raised by them are summarised as follows; • Referencing the previous refusal for similar development (19/409), they contend that there is no further evidence provided by the applicant to justify a change in decision. • Referencing planning policies contained under the previous County Development Plan 2019-2025 they contend that the proposal is contrary to FMP 2 and FLP 2 as it; i. cannot be justified on strategic grounds, ii. flood risk is increased to adjoining lands and beyond, iii. silt and debris from filled lands will cause ongoing issues and extra maintenance. iv. lack of adequate mitigate measures in place within site to deal with flood water displacement. • Mitigation measures would be required on lands outside the applicant’s control. • The survey references a drain that storm water will be directed to which is on lands within Vale Park Farms ownership. No discussion has been has made with regard to survey of same. • ValePark will effectively act as pluvial storage and the proposal will adversely effect storm drains within Vale park resulting in further flooding downstream nearer the Blackwater river. • Flood attenuation currently provided within the site should be retained. • Calculations confirm flooding will be caused to adjoining lands, this is not acceptable. • Gallinagh farms should provide their own storm drain to the Blackwater River. • MCC should appoint an independent specialist to assess flood risk and confirm findings. Appropriate Assessment Policy HCLP 8 section 15.13 ‘Assessments Required’ and 6.7 Natura 2000 Sites and Appropriate Assessment (AA). 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 upon the integrity of a Natura 2000 site (i.e. 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). In respect of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2019-2025, policy AAP1 states that “all projects and plans will be screened for the need to undertake Appropriate Assessment under Article 6 of the Habitats Directive”. The site lies within 8km of Slieve Beagh SPA. The following issues are of relevance in the screening exercise:- • The distance of the proposed development site from any Natura 2000 site. • The scale and nature of the proposed development. • The conservation objectives of Slieve Beagh SPA. • The relevant policies within the County Monaghan Development Plan 2019-2025 in respect of the protection of Natura 2000 sites. • The in combination effects of the proposed development with other plans or projects. The conservation objective of Slieve Beagh SPA is to maintain or restore the favourable conservation condition of the Hen Harrier. The Planning Authority notes that the River Blackwater flows within 200 metres of the site area. The River Blackwater is a tributary of Lough Neagh SPA. The planning authority is of the opinion that the development is sufficiently removed from the aforementioned Natura 2000 site to ensure that it will not have any significant effect on its integrity. 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 the above mentioned or any other Natura 2000 sites and therefore a Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment is not required in respect of this project. EIA Based on the information provided and having considered the nature, size and location of the development and the absence of any connectivity to any environmentally sensitive location, it is considered that there is no real likelihood of significant effects on the environment arising from the proposed development. The need for environmental impact assessment can, therefore, be excluded at preliminary examination and a screening determination is not required. Planning Assessment Section 15.32 Infilling of Lands This section states as follows; ‘Development proposals for the infilling of lands with inert construction and demolition waste will only be acceptable where it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that there will be no adverse impact upon surface and groundwaters, or upon areas which are at risk of flooding. Proposals for the prevention and mitigation of any perceived impacts shall satisfy the targets of any Waterbody and Catchment Management Plans as developed by Monaghan County Council, LAWPRO and Uisce Éireann and also any Source Protection Plans developed by Group Water Schemes. Proposals for infilling of lands at risk of flooding will be required to be accompanied by a site- specific Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with Section 15.22.8 of Chapter 15 of this Development Plan. Development proposals for the infilling of lands for agricultural improvement will only be acceptable where it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority how the infilling of the lands will meet current farm management requirements and will not adversely affect water quality and biodiversity or cause/exacerbate flooding. Proposals for the infilling of land shall have regard relevant development management policies in this Development Plan such as traffic management and access arrangements.’ The total area of the site is 0.80 Ha (1.97acres). The application has stated the total volume of fill to be imported onto the site will be approximately 6,220m³, which converts to 9.33 Tonnes to a maximum depth of 2.4m over the 0.80 Ha site. The site will be finished with topsoil and grassed over on completion. Environment section notes that the proposed activity will be subject to authorisation from Environmental Services under the Waste Management Act (Facility Permit and Registration) Regulations 2007 as amended. The Office of Public Works (OPW) Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) maps indicate that the eastern half of the proposed site is vulnerable to pluvial flooding. The applicant has submitted a site-specific flood risk assessment in support. See assessment below. Section 8.7 Flood Risk Management and section 15.22.8 Flood Zones and Appropriate Uses Policy FRP 1 states that proposals for developments shall comply with Section 15.22.8 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. Section 15.22.8 states that all development proposals in flood risk areas should be supported with a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), in accordance with the DECLG, The Planning System and Flood Risk Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2009) and Departmental Circular PL2/2014. Section 15.22.8 Flood Zones and Appropriate Uses This section notes that it is essential that flooding issues are properly considered, and development shall be restricted and/or limited in areas which are at risk of flooding. The MCDP 2025-2031 includes a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) which was prepared to inform the land use zonings and has identified areas at risk of flooding. Given the sites proximity to Monaghan Town, flood data has also been captured with regard to this site and surrounding lands. See Figure 1 below which shows that the site not to be at risk from pluvial flooding. Figure 1: SFRA Appendix E Flood Information Maps, MCDP 2025-2031 Figure 2: The Office of Public Works (OPW) Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) maps A site-specific flood risk assessment (SSFRA) has been submitted with the application, as carried out by CS Pringle.The submitted SSFRA includes the image below which shows the location of the area to be filled superimposed on the (OPW) Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment of the pluvial flooding. Figure 3: Area to be filled superimposed on the (OPW) Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment of the pluvial flooding. The inner darker area of range represents the PFRA estimate of the 1:100 year pluvial flood while the outer line represents the PFRA estimate of the maximum extent of pluvial flooding. The PFRA shows that the site in question is not impacted by fluvial flooding which is shown in blue. This submitted information correlates with MCDP 2025-2031 Strategic flood risk maps and OPW indicative flood risk data, as shown above (Figure 2 & 3) Section 15.22.8 of the MCDP 2025-2031 states that it is essential that flooding issues are properly considered, and development shall be restricted and/or limited in areas which are at risk of flooding. Monaghan County Council will restrict development in areas susceptible to flooding except where: • The proposed development can be justified on strategic grounds. • The proposed development has addressed the flooding concerns which exist. • The flood risk can be managed to an acceptable degree and without increasing flood risk beyond the site itself. • Appropriate and detailed mitigation measures can be implemented to remove/minimise flood effects. The submitted site specific flood risk assessment with the application concludes; • pluvial flooding is possible for short duration storms of return period greater than 1:5 years. • The basin has been piped with a 225 mm concrete pipe which drains the area in times of flooding so that the flooding dissipates quickly from the area. • A 1:100-year storm with 1.2 climate change factor added will dissipate in 81minutes. • The fill material proposed will rise the level of water in the basin by just 8mm in the area remaining. Such a volume is relatively small approximately 12m³ and is quickly dissipated in a time of 3.1 minutes. • The increase in flood storage height as a result is insignificant within the context of a greenfield site of limited area and with no receptors of risk. • The additional height of water store has no impact on the rate of flow into the Blackwater so that there is no change in risk downstream of the site • The proposed infill has no significant impact on risk of flooding adjacent or downstream. • The residual risk is unchanged from what currently pertains and that is that the drainage from the site depends on the pipe being maintained and kept clear of blockage. The SSFRA acknowledges that the proposal will create an additional risk of an 8mm rise in the water levels (increase from 56.324mOD to 56.332mOD, that it will dissipate after 3 minutes and as such, is deemed to be ‘insignificant’. It is noted that no mitigation measures are proposed to address this additional risk. As noted above, section 15.22.8 of the MCDP 2025- 2031 requires applicants to demonstrate that flood risk can be managed to an acceptable degree and ‘without increasing flood risk beyond the site itself’ and that ‘appropriate and detailed mitigation measures can be implemented to remove/minimise flood effects’. The Planning Authority remains concerned that this increase in water level, albeit minor, will ultimately occur on third party lands as a direct consequence of the infilling of submitted site area. It is also noted that no mitigation measures are proposed to address this additional risk. Furthermore, it is noted that mitigation measures i.e. the proposed head wall screen cages to the existing pipe infrastructure, proposed under previously refused application (19/409) could not be implemented as undertaken given the location of the pipe outside the site area and within third party ownership. Given the above, it is considered that that applicant has provided insufficient information to assess and/or properly mitigate the potential flood risk impacts of proposed infilling on the site, the loss of pluvial storage on the site and the potential to create or exacerbate flooding elsewhere outside the site. Further information shall be sought accordingly from the applicant. Section 6.2 Protection of Biodiversity including Natura 2000 Network The Development Plan recognises that nature conservation is not just confined to designated sites and acknowledge the need to protect non-designated habitats and landscapes, and to conserve their biological diversity and provide ecosystem services (see objective HCLO3). There is no evidence that the application site, or adjoining lands, are of particular ecological merit or that the development will have an adverse impact on any local natural heritage assets. The file has been referred to the Council Heritage Officer and Biodiversity officer however no response has been received from either. Policy RCP3 ‘Rural Accesses and Section 15.16.1 ‘Rural Accesses’, Policy RAS 1 ‘Access Details’ and Section 15.27.1 ‘Visibility Standards’. The site accesses onto an local tertiary road. The submitted site layout plan demonstrates that the required sight distances of 50 metres by 2.4 metres can be accommodated within the ownership of the applicant. Conclusion Further information is required to address issues with regard to the potential increase in flood risk arising from the development. The applicant will also requested to address issues raised in the submitted letter of objection. Recommendation. It is recommended that additional information is requested follows: 1. a) The Office of Public Works (OPW) Preliminary Flood Risk Assessment (PFRA) maps indicate that a significant portion of the proposed site is vulnerable to pluvial flooding. Section 15.22.8 ‘Flood Zones and Appropriate Uses’ of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031, states that Monaghan County Council will restrict development in areas susceptible to flooding except where; a) The proposed development can be justified on strategic grounds. b) The proposed development has addressed the flooding concerns which exist. c) The flood risk can be managed to an acceptable degree and without increasing flood risk beyond the site itself. d) Appropriate and detailed mitigation measures can be implemented to remove/minimise flood effects. It is considered that the submitted site-specific flood risk assessment does not give sufficient consideration to the potential effects of the loss of pluvial storage from the site and issues arising from displacement of this storage. The applicant is requested to submit revised flood risk assessment, which sufficiently demonstrates compliance with criteria a) to d) listed above and which addresses the issues of pluvial flooding, the loss of pluvial storage on the site and the potential to create or exacerbate flooding elsewhere outside the site due to displacement of pluvial storage. The revised flood risk assessment should also include the following; (i) Confirmation of the proposed classes of activity and type of materials to be used for the infilling of the lands. (ii) Information to clearly demonstrate that the characteristics of the imported subsoil/material, which will impact on water storage and flood risk, have been taken into account. (iii) Information to clearly demonstrate why a runoff risk index/WRAP value of 3 has been chosen. (iv) A revised topographical survey, using Arc3d modelling or similar, to demonstrate approximate available space, in tonnages per cross section. 2. A third-party submission has been received with respect to the development proposed. The applicant is invited to review the content of same and respond to the issues raised. Brian Mc Geary Planner 19/09/2025 Further Information Assessment Further information was received by the Planning Authority on 02 July 2026, consisting of a Revised Flood Risk Assessment, incorporating a response to the Further Information request. Further information deemed significant and revised notices submitted to include significant further information/revised plans submitted includes the following: - Cut & fill volume analysis report – Revised site boundary – Revised development description to include revised volume of imported inert material (up to apx 6365 m3), updated topographical survey including updated site plan, site sections, flood risk assessment. Revised Site notice was visible and legible on site on inspection of 22 July 2026. The applicant contends that it is not appropriate for MCC to place reliance on OPW Preliminary FRA pluvial mapping extents to conclude that pluvial food risk exists or that it exists to the extent shown on the mapping. Applicant notes the OPW advice to planning authorities has been that the PRFA indicative pluvial maps are not considered to be reliable for the purposes of zoning or decision-making. Applicant notes that if a 300mm pipe had been installed, then no pluvial flooding would take place as the flow of water into the basin would be matched at all times by the volume of water exiting. As it is the 225mm concrete pipe that has been installed slightly throttles the maximum flow from the basin but is large enough to limit the maximum extent of flooding so that it barely encroaches on the subject property. A sliver of land on the subject property is shown to be within the extents for a 100- year plus climate change but the toe of the proposed infill material, then no flooding needs to be managed and if no displacement of flood storage takes place, the no transfer of risk takes place and appropriate and detailed mitigation measures to remove / minimise flood effect are not required. However, for purposes of ensuring that any runoff from the inert material being stored it is proposed to place a toe drain along the base of the embankment and said drain will have the impact of increasing the flood storage available which will slightly lower the level to which water will rise to. Further information response also confirms: - Class of materials for infilling will be 5 & 6 if done under a certificate of registration or waste facility permit. This may also be done under Article 27 EPA notification using by product. The type of material used for infilling the lands is inert material or by product or as otherwise described in the attached breakdown of materials. - As the imported subsoil material is shown not to encroach on the 100-year+CC of the flood extents water storage is not displaced, and no further transfer of flood risk takes place. - A WRAP value of 3 has been chosen because the site in question is located in an area with a WRAP value of 3. - Materials are proposed to be imported into the site. The volume of materials is approximately 6365m3 depending on the suitability of material excavated on site. Assuming the imported inert material has a density of around 1.4 tonnes/m3, there will be approximately 7,500 – 10,000 tonnes of inert material to be imported to site. Response to third-party comments: - States that it is their understanding that Vale Park Farms don’t and never have owned the land adjacent to the subject property. - The appellant misunderstands the nature of pluvial flood risk as indicated in the OPW PRFA. - The appellant is taking a description of the natural drainage of the catchment that flows to the basin and thence to the river via a piped section of the drain from C to D to E as being something the applicant is going to use in a way that wasn’t previously being used. Applicant notes that none of the drain is in ownership of the appellant and that part of the drain from D to E to F is in applicant’s ownership. Applicant contends that the appellant misunderstands the description that was given and the concept that an inadequately sized pipe in heavy rainfall can act as a temporary throttle, misunderstands the hydrology and natural drainage within a rural environment whereby drainage channels convey water from field to field regardless of ownership depending on the topography. - No screen is proposed either on the entrance to the pipe on the neighbouring land nor on the exit to the pipe located at the applicant’s lands. - The lands the appellant is taking on to defend is not in theirs to defend. An extra 8mm in the level of water on the lands as per previous submission which lasted 3.1 minutes for a 100-year storm plus CC (equating to 1:300-year storm) before returning to the state that pertained previous to the development was considered so trivial a risk as to be truly insignificant especially when given the generous nature of the assumptions made to arrive at this conclusion. There is no loss of flood storage and no loss to neighbouring lands. - Applicant contends the development can be justified on strategic grounds without increasing flood risk beyond itself. - Applicant states the proposed infill material will be inert material so debris will not be an issue, and measures to combat silt will be built into the system. - With regard to FLP2 Flood Risk Policy it has been demonstrated that no mitigation measures are required as there is no displacement of floodwater storage and in fact floodwater storage has been effectively increased. Updated report from Environment section in response to Further Information submission (dated 20 July 2026): Revised flood risk assessment received outlines the proposed class of activity will be 5 & 6 if done under a certificate of registration or waste facility permit. This may also be done under Article 27 EPA notification using by-product. The type of material used for infilling the lands is inert material or By-product or as otherwise described in the attached breakdown of materials to be used. The site layout plan fails to demonstrate a berm or designated area required for accepting, storing, and utilising any by-product material. No details have been submitted regarding both by-product and infill waste to be accepted. To determine the total volume of material accepted both types of material must be accounted for. Revised Flood Risk Assessment received in response to the FI request. This updated report differs from the version submitted previously. While initial evaluations suggested the existing 225mm diameter pipe was insufficient—with a proposed upgrade to a 300mm pipe—the revised report confirms otherwise. The report states the 225mm pipe is large enough to limit the maximum extent of flooding. Email from OPW received with FI states pluvial maps are not considered to be reliable for the purpose of zoning or decision making and therefore not suitable for site-specific decision- making. The revised FRA proposes a toe drain along the toe of the embankment into which any runoff from the fill area is collected and will increase available storage. Environment reports references non-compliance with permit conditions of a Certificate of Registration for a site at Clover, approximately 900m from the proposed development. Report also refers to conversation with the Environment Officer and the applicant in which the applicant advised that he was not going to undertake the required environmental monitoring at the proposed site at Newgrove. Planning Assessment Having assessed the applicant’s responses to the further information request, it is noted that the subject lands do not have pluvial storage. The applicant in their submission has not taken account of long periods of prolonged rainfall. The Planning Authority remains concerned that increases in water levels would ultimately occur on third party lands as a direct consequence of the infilling of the site area. Further, the further information has confirmed that the fill to be used will be of class 5 and 6 materials, yet it has not been demonstrated how the materials will be accepted, stored or utilised, or to determine the total volume of both types of material to be accepted. The proposed development is contrary to the following policies and sections of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 as follows: FRP 1 Proposals for developments shall comply with Section 15.22.8. ILP 1 Infilling of Lands and Section 15.32 Conclusion The Planning Authority is not satisfied that the applicant has adequately addressed the AI request as per AI submission on 02 July 2026. The proposed development fails to comply with the relevant provisions of Monaghan County Development Plan 2025 – 2031, specifically the flood risk provisions in Section 15.22.8 and Policy ILP 1 Infilling of Lands and environmental pollution. Consequently, a Refusal of Permission is recommended. Recommendation That planning permission is REFUSED for the following reasons: 1. Objective SSO 22 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 seeks “To apply the precautionary principle in relation to development on lands identified as being at risk of flooding and to restrict development to uses that are compatible to the level of flood risk unless supported by a site-specific flood risk assessment and development management justification test”. Policy FRP 1 states “Proposals for developments shall comply with Section 15.22.8 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031”. Section 15.22.8 states “Monaghan County Council will restrict development in areas susceptible to flooding except where: a) The proposed development can be justified on strategic grounds. b) The proposed development has addressed the flooding concerns which exist. c) The flood risk can be managed to an acceptable degree and without increasing flood risk beyond the site itself. d) Appropriate and detailed mitigation measures can be implemented to remove/minimise flood effects. The proposal has failed to adequately demonstrate how the potential for flooding from prolonged rainfall events can be managed to an acceptable degree and without increasing flood risk beyond the site itself, and as a result there is a risk that increased water levels would ultimately occur on third party lands as a direct consequence of the infilling of the site area. Consequently, to permit the development as proposed would be contrary to Objective SSO 22 and Policy FRP 1 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and thus would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. 2. Policy ILP 1 seeks to ensure that ‘Development proposals for infilling of lands shall comply with Section 15.32 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025 – 2031, and that development proposals for the infilling of lands with inert construction and demolition waste will only be acceptable where it is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that there will be no adverse impact upon surface and ground waters, or upon areas which are at risk of flooding. Proposals for the prevention and mitigation of any perceived impacts shall satisfy the targets of any Waterbody and Catchment Management Plans developed by Group Water Schemes. Proposals for infilling of lands at risk of flooding will be required to be accompanied by a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment in accordance with Section 15.22.8 of Chapter 15 of this Development Plan. The proposal has failed to adequately demonstrate how the proposed fill materials will be accepted, stored or utilised, or to determine the total volume of both types of material to be accepted, and therefore, the proposal has not demonstrated that the there will be no adverse impact upon surface and ground waters, or upon areas that are at risk of flooding. Consequently, to permit the development as proposed would be contrary to Policy ILP 1 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and thus would be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Máire Cullinan A/Senior Executive Planner 21 July 2026