HomeMy WebLinkAbout2560489 - Submission - [E] Bronagh Kane (2)Submission Details
Submitter
Name Bronagh Kane
Address 14 Cois Locha, Doohamlet Doohamlet Co.Monaghan A75 RR62
Note
In relation to application
File Number 2560489
Name Partnership Connolly
Address Doohamlat Castleblayney, County Monaghan A75CF58 RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 1
Formal Planning Objection – Ref. 25/60489
Connolly Partnership – Doohamlat, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan
Planning Ref. 25/60489
Applicant: Connolly Partnership
Location: Doohamlat, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan
Proposal: Residential development and associated infrastructure
Submitted by: Bronagh Kane
Date: 10 August 2026
1. INTRODUCTION
I wish to make a formal objection/observation to the above application, including the significant further information and
revised material submitted by the applicant.
I respectfully request that planning permission be REFUSED.
This submission focuses particularly on matters that remain unresolved following the Further Information response,
and on additional documentary evidence obtained under Freedom of Information from Uisce Éireann concerning the
operational condition, maintenance history and resilience of the Doohamlet Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP).
My objection is not based on an assertion that the WWTP has no nominal treatment capacity. Rather, the evidence
demonstrates a material distinction between theoretical capacity and demonstrated operational reliability. The planning
authority must be satisfied that the wastewater infrastructure serving the development is adequate, reliable and
resilient under actual operating conditions, including periods of heavy rainfall and hydraulic stress.
The submission also raises concerns regarding water quality, flooding and drainage, biodiversity and protected
species, artificial lighting, road safety, residential amenity, archaeological remains, and inconsistencies within the
Further Information package.
2. MATERIAL INCONSISTENCY IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLINGS
The Further Information package is internally inconsistent as to the number of dwellings proposed.
The Further Information cover letter dated 23 June 2026 describes the proposal as comprising 44 dwellings, consisting
of 5 single-storey semi-detached houses and 39 two-storey houses.
However, the submitted Construction and Environmental Management Plan describes the proposal as a development
of 45 dwelling houses, comprising 7 single-storey semi-detached houses and 38 two-storey houses.
The lighting documentation also describes the project as a “Housing Development for 45 Units at Doohamlet” and the
lighting drawings retain a House 45 reference.
At the same time, the applicant's response to the Planning Authority states that House No. 45 has been removed and
that the revised development comprises 44 dwellings.
This is a material issue rather than a typographical matter. The number and type of dwellings directly affects
wastewater loading, water demand, traffic generation, parking, open space, lighting, drainage and the assessment of
the overall development.
The Planning Authority should not determine the application until the final dwelling count, dwelling mix and all
associated engineering calculations have been reconciled across every document in the application.
If the public notice, drawings or other documents describe a different quantum of development, the Planning Authority
should also satisfy itself that the statutory public participation requirements have been fully met.
3. WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE – OPERATIONAL RELIABILITY AND
RESILIENCE
This is the principal concern arising from the FOI material.RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 2
The applicant's response treats the wastewater issue primarily as a question of whether the proposed connection can
be made to the public sewer. That does not address the central issue raised by the documentary record: whether the
receiving wastewater infrastructure has demonstrated sufficient operational resilience to accommodate additional
loading reliably.
The Monaghan County Development Plan 2025–2031 contains WWP 1, which provides that development is only to be
permitted where there is sufficient capacity in the public water and wastewater infrastructure.
The evidence obtained under FOI demonstrates a prolonged history of operational difficulty at the Doohamlet WWTP.
FOI maintenance records document 38 tanker loads removed between 25 November and 5 December 2025 and a
further 43 tanker loads between 9 and 23 December 2025 — 81 recorded tanker loads within less than one month.
Internal Uisce Éireann correspondence dated 26 November 2025 records that there was a period when “we have no
process at this plant currently” and that sludge was being removed by tanker.
The records also document repeated RBC mechanical failures, including chain failures and a confirmed breakdown in
January 2025.
A January 2026 site meeting involving Uisce Éireann, Monaghan County Council and EMCA addressed recurring
operational problems. EMCA identified the lack of inlet screening as a principal operational issue and explained that
during storm conditions rags were entering the RBC, causing excessive loading and repeated chain failures.
The FOI records subsequently document significant remedial intervention, including RBC works, cleaning and
inspection of components and proposals concerning gearbox replacement.
Most significantly, an internal Uisce Éireann email dated 21 April 2026 states that EMCA had removed the RAS pump
from the Doohamlet WWTP for repair or replacement and that this was urgent because “the sludge has to be tankered
off site”.
This is direct documentary evidence linking equipment failure to the need for tankering.
The issue is therefore not merely historical. The FOI record demonstrates continuing equipment intervention into 2026.
The applicant's statement that the development will connect to the existing public sewer does not answer these
concerns. Connection to a public sewer is not equivalent to demonstrating that the receiving treatment system has
sufficient reliable operational headroom.
I respectfully request that the Planning Authority require, before determination:
confirmation from Uisce Éireann of the current operational status of the Doohamlet WWTP;
confirmation of the current actual and permitted PE loading;
confirmation of demonstrated spare treatment capacity, not merely theoretical design capacity;
a complete record of tankering and contingency operation relevant to the plant;
confirmation that the recurring RBC failures have been permanently resolved;
confirmation of the status of the RAS pump and gearbox works;
confirmation that the inlet-screening deficiency has been permanently addressed;
confirmation of the plant's demonstrated resilience during wet-weather and peak hydraulic conditions; and
confirmation that the proposed development's final dwelling count has been used in all wastewater calculations.
Absent such evidence, I do not consider that the requirements of WWP 1 have been satisfactorily demonstrated.
Photographic evidence of the January 2026 flooding: The following photographs are included as contemporaneous
site-specific evidence of the extent of flooding affecting the wastewater treatment works and adjoining public
recreational space.RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 3
Photograph 1 – Flooding affecting the wastewater treatment works and its immediate surroundings, 27 January 2026.
Photograph 2 – Local children's playground/public park substantially inundated following the flooding event.RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 4
Photograph 3 – Floodwater extending along the access/pathway adjacent to the wastewater treatment works.
Photographic evidence: The following photographs were taken in connection with the 27 January 2026 flooding event
and are included to document the physical extent of flooding affecting the wastewater treatment works and the
adjoining public park/playground.
4. FLOODING, WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE JANUARY 2026
INCIDENT
The operational concerns above must be considered alongside the actual flooding experienced locally.RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 5
Following severe flooding on 27 January 2026, a formal pollution report was logged with Uisce Éireann from the
Doohamlet area. The report records observations of apparent untreated or partially treated sewage entering nearby
waters, inundation of the local playground and football pitch, the wastewater infrastructure being submerged under
approximately two feet of floodwater, and an apparent pathway of contaminated floodwater. Photographic evidence
was supplied with that report.
I acknowledge that observations made during a flooding event do not, by themselves, establish the precise source or
legal status of any discharge. However, they are highly relevant contextual evidence when considered alongside the
contemporaneous FOI records documenting plant malfunction, tankering and storm-related mechanical problems.
The photographs should therefore be considered as corroborating evidence of the real-world vulnerability of the local
wastewater infrastructure during severe weather.
The proposed development will add further foul-water loading to the same system and will also introduce additional
impermeable surfaces and a new surface-water drainage regime.
The Planning Authority should therefore assess the interaction between:
the existing WWTP's demonstrated operational difficulties;
wet-weather hydraulic loading;
the January 2026 flooding;
the adjoining watercourse;
the proposed development's additional foul-water loading; and
the proposed surface-water drainage system.
The issue is one of cumulative resilience rather than simply ordinary dry-weather capacity.
5. WATER QUALITY AND ADJOINING WATERCOURSE
The applicant's own Environmental Protection Plan Checklist identifies the receiving Major Lough Stream_010
waterbody as having poor status and being “At risk”. It records the status as poor for 2019–2024.
The checklist also records extreme groundwater vulnerability and identifies a stream along the western boundary of
the site.
The applicant's Further Information response acknowledges that the development adjoins the Major Lough
Stream_010 and that water-quality concerns have been raised.
The submitted riparian buffer document itself explains that riparian buffer zones provide bank stability during flood
conditions and filter pollutants before they reach a watercourse or lake. It states that the recommended buffer width for
smaller channels is 20m or greater, tailored to site-specific circumstances, and describes an intended 10–25m riparian
buffer approach.
These are important acknowledgements of the sensitivity of the receiving environment.
The Planning Authority should not assume that a proposed buffer and SuDS system automatically eliminate risk. The
site is in a catchment already identified as at risk and poor in status, while the wastewater receiving infrastructure has
a documented history of operational instability.
The precautionary approach therefore requires careful examination of whether the proposed drainage and wastewater
arrangements can avoid deterioration in water quality.
6. SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE AND CLIMATE RESILIENCE
The applicant proposes SuDS and infiltration-based measures and states that BRE 365 infiltration testing and
groundwater assessment can be provided where necessary.
This wording is important. The response indicates that site-specific testing is proposed where ground conditions are
challenging, rather than demonstrating that the necessary site-specific infiltration and groundwater evidence has
already established the long-term viability of the proposed system.
The Planning Authority should require the actual infiltration testing and groundwater evidence necessary to
demonstrate that the proposed system will function as designed.
The applicant's own drainage maintenance plan recognises the need for inspections following severe weather events
and states that pipework/attenuation systems are to be inspected following adverse weather.RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 6
That commitment is welcome, but it does not remove the need to establish that the drainage system is adequately
designed in the first place.
The January 2026 flooding demonstrates that severe rainfall is not merely a theoretical climate scenario in this
location.
The Planning Authority should therefore satisfy itself that the proposed drainage system has been assessed against
appropriate current and future climate-related rainfall conditions and that the development will not worsen existing
flooding or increase pressure on the adjoining stream, park, playground or local infrastructure.
Photographic evidence of the established ecological border and heron use: The photographs below document the
mature, densely vegetated boundary habitat and the presence of herons using this established area. The second
photograph provides a close view of two herons within the vegetation. The photographs are included as site-specific
evidence of the ecological sensitivity of the existing habitat.
Photograph 4 – Established mature vegetation and ecological border adjoining the site.RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 7
Photograph 5 – Two herons recorded within the established vegetated habitat.
7. BIODIVERSITY, RIPARIAN HABITAT AND WILDLIFE
The site and surrounding area form part of a wider ecological setting involving the adjoining stream, wet ground, the
local park and nearby lake environment.
The Development Plan recognises that nature conservation is not confined to designated sites and requires protection
of non-designated habitats and biological diversity. GIO 4 specifically recognises the importance of wetlands, rivers,
streams, hedgerows and associated wildlife as ecological corridors and stepping stones.
The site-specific riparian documentation identifies existing vegetation including alder, birch, ash, hawthorn, willow and
bramble along the watercourse.
The applicant's own riparian report recognises the ecological and water-protection functions of the buffer.
There are also locally observed herons and swans associated with the nearby water environment, together with an
established rookery among the trees around the heron nesting area. These features should be treated as part of the
wider ecological context rather than disregarded because they are not necessarily within a designated Natura site.
The Planning Authority should ensure that the ecological assessment considers the full functional relationship between
the development site, stream corridor, wetland areas, local park and downstream lake environment.
Particular attention should be given to disturbance, lighting, hydrological changes, construction runoff and loss or
fragmentation of ecological connectivity.
8. ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING – MATERIAL UNRESOLVED CONFLICT
The lighting information requires further scrutiny.
The applicant's response states that it is prepared to commit to warm-colour-temperature lighting below 2700K, full
cut-off shielding and dimming to minimise disturbance to nocturnal wildlife.
However, the actual submitted lighting documentation identifies the principal Disano street luminaire as 4000K, CRI
70, 16W. The site lighting drawing also identifies the proposed 6m lighting columns and the 4000K luminaire.
The lighting drawing further identifies 3000K Ballard 1737 Expo LED fittings in the scheme.RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 8
This creates a material discrepancy between the applicant's narrative commitment and the actual submitted lighting
specification.
The Development Plan's lighting policies include LP 1, requiring lighting to be controlled in sensitive locations to
minimise impacts on habitats and species, and LP 3, requiring lighting to be limited to what is necessary, avoiding
glare and upward emission, and protecting light-sensitive species such as bats.
The applicant itself accepted that the lighting should be considered in light of wildlife guidance and proposed a
sub-2700K solution. That commitment should not remain a general statement capable of later alteration.
I request that the current lighting design be revised to a genuinely wildlife-sensitive specification and that a detailed
ecological lighting assessment demonstrate light spill and lux levels at the stream corridor, boundary vegetation and
other sensitive habitats.
No lighting should be permitted to illuminate the riparian corridor or adjacent ecological features beyond the minimum
necessary for safety.
9. ROAD SAFETY AND TRAFFIC
The proposed entrance is onto the R183, in a village environment containing the national school, community facilities,
church, community park and playground.
The applicant's response acknowledges that concerns have been raised regarding excessive speeds and visibility and
refers to recorded speed data, while stating that traffic-calming measures could be discussed by condition.
That response is not sufficient to resolve the underlying issue.
Traffic calming should not be left as a future discussion after permission has been granted where the existing road
environment already presents identified road-safety concerns.
The Development Plan requires significant development proposals to be accompanied by appropriate traffic and
transport assessment and road-safety consideration, including cumulative impacts.
The Planning Authority should require a clear, site-specific assessment of:
actual observed vehicle speeds;
pedestrian and cyclist movements;
school-related traffic and pedestrian activity;
visibility at the proposed entrance;
interaction with existing parking and the public house;
cumulative traffic generated by the proposed development;
the effect of the proposed entrance on the R183; and
any traffic-calming measures required and their funding/delivery mechanism.
A condition to “discuss” traffic calming is not equivalent to demonstrating that the access is safe.
10. RESIDENTIAL AMENITY, GROUND LEVELS AND BOUNDARY TREATMENT
The Planning Authority itself identified concerns regarding ground levels, finished floor levels, ridge levels, cut and fill
and the relationship between the proposed development and existing dwellings.
The applicant has now submitted additional sections and a cut-and-fill plan, which is welcome. However, the Planning
Authority should assess the revised material on the basis of actual relative levels rather than relying solely on stated
fence heights or nominal separation distances.
The applicant acknowledges that apparent fence height may change significantly because of the site's sloping ground.
This is particularly relevant where two-storey dwellings, boundary fencing and landscaping will combine to affect
outlook, privacy, visual dominance and perceived enclosure.
The assessment should consider the final built form, finished ground levels, fence heights measured from adjoining
ground levels, mature planting heights and the cumulative effect of all of these elements.
11. ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 9
The Further Information archaeological assessment identifies multiple potential archaeological anomalies from
geophysical survey.
Test excavation subsequently identified two archaeological features in Trench 12: a small pit with evidence of in-situ
burning and a larger pit or possible kiln.
The archaeological assessment states that the presence of these features indicates definite archaeological activity
within the proposed development site and that additional features may remain in untested areas.
It further concludes that there is a moderate to high risk that identified or additional archaeological features could be
directly impacted by development works and recommends licensed archaeological monitoring of groundworks, with
preservation in situ or preservation by record where archaeological material is identified.
This is material evidence arising from the Further Information process.
The Planning Authority should ensure that the archaeological recommendations have been fully considered by the
competent heritage authority and that no permission is granted in circumstances where archaeological impacts remain
unresolved.
12. GROUP WATER SCHEME / WATER SUPPLY
The applicant's own Further Information response acknowledges that the initial correspondence from the Doohamlet
Group Water Scheme was qualified.
The applicant states that it is “currently in active dialogue” with the scheme management and board and proposes to
obtain a future board-authorised resolution confirming sustainable supply for the dwellings.
This is not the same as having a binding, existing confirmation of adequate capacity at the time of determination.
Moreover, the Further Information response refers to 44 dwellings, reinforcing the need to reconcile the dwelling count
throughout the application.
The Planning Authority should require the actual executed/binding evidence of water supply capacity before
determination, including confirmation that the relevant governing body has authorised the connection and that the
scheme's source yield, treatment capacity and resilience are sufficient for the final development quantum.
13. CUMULATIVE AND INTERRELATED IMPACTS
The issues in this submission should not be assessed in isolation.
The site is proposed for a substantial residential development in a small village setting while the surrounding
infrastructure includes:
a wastewater treatment plant with a documented history of mechanical failures and contingency tankering;
a receiving waterbody identified as poor and at risk;
an adjoining stream and riparian corridor;
a documented severe flooding event affecting the WWTP and public recreational areas;
an existing road environment with identified road-safety concerns;
sensitive ecological features including wetland, watercourse and bird habitat;
substantial new artificial lighting;
new surface-water infrastructure; and
archaeological features identified within the development site.
The cumulative effect is important.
A development may appear acceptable when each component is considered separately, while the combined effects
may create a level of environmental and infrastructure risk that is not adequately addressed.
14. REQUEST FOR REFUSAL
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that Monaghan County Council refuse permission for Planning
Ref. 25/60489 on the basis that the application has not demonstrated that the proposed development can be
accommodated without unacceptable risk to wastewater infrastructure, water quality, flood resilience, road safety,
biodiversity, residential amenity and archaeological heritage.RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 10
In particular, I ask the Planning Authority to give substantial weight to the contemporaneous FOI evidence concerning
the Doohamlet WWTP. The records demonstrate that the issue is not simply theoretical capacity but actual reliability
and resilience.
If the Planning Authority is not minded to refuse at this stage, I respectfully request that no decision be made until the
following matters are conclusively resolved:
1. The final number and mix of dwellings is reconciled across all application documents.
2. Uisce Éireann confirms current operational reliability, spare capacity and wet-weather resilience of the Doohamlet
WWTP.
3. The full maintenance and tankering history is considered as part of the wastewater assessment.
4. The status of the RBC, RAS pump, gearbox works and inlet-screening solution is confirmed.
5. The January 2026 flooding and associated pollution report are considered in the flood/wastewater assessment.
6. Site-specific infiltration and groundwater evidence is provided.
7. The proposed drainage system is demonstrated to avoid increasing flood risk.
8. The receiving Major Lough Stream_010 is protected from deterioration in water quality.
9. The ecological assessment properly considers the stream corridor, wetland functions, downstream lake environment
and protected/light-sensitive species.
10. The lighting design is amended so that the actual specification is consistent with the stated wildlife-sensitive
commitment, with appropriate lux/light-spill assessment.
11. Road safety and traffic impacts are demonstrated to be acceptable, including any necessary traffic-calming
measures.
12. Archaeological mitigation is agreed with the National Monuments Service before any development proceeds.
13. Binding and competent evidence of water-supply capacity is provided for the final dwelling quantum.
14. Any further material amendment arising from these matters is subject to the appropriate statutory public
consultation requirements.
15. CONCLUSION
This objection is submitted on the basis of documentary evidence now available to the Planning Authority.
The FOI records are particularly important because they provide an internal contemporaneous record of how the
Doohamlet wastewater infrastructure has actually performed. They document repeated mechanical intervention,
substantial tanker activity, periods when the treatment process was not functioning normally, storm-related operational
problems, further equipment failures and the continuing need for contingency measures into 2026.
That evidence should be assessed alongside the January 2026 flooding event, the condition of the receiving
waterbody, the proposed additional loading and the wider ecological and infrastructure constraints of the site.
The evidence does not require the Planning Authority to assume that the WWTP has no capacity. It does, however,
require the Authority to distinguish between nominal capacity and demonstrated operational resilience.
In my submission, the current application has not yet demonstrated that the additional development can be
accommodated safely and sustainably without unacceptable risk to wastewater treatment reliability, water quality, flood
resilience and the surrounding environment.
I therefore respectfully request that permission be REFUSED.
Signed:
Bronagh Kane
APPENDICES / SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Appendix A – Uisce Éireann FOI maintenance and equipment-failure records
Appendix B – Uisce Éireann FOI tanker-load records
Appendix C – Uisce Éireann correspondence concerning RBC failures and operational difficulties
Appendix D – Uisce Éireann correspondence concerning RAS pump removal and tankering requirement, April 2026RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 11
Appendix E – January 2026 flooding and pollution-report correspondence
Appendix F – Photographic record of flooding at the WWTP, local park/playground and surrounding water environment
Appendix G – Further Information package: wastewater, drainage, water protection and riparian buffer material
Appendix H – Further Information lighting design and lighting layout
Appendix I – Archaeological Impact Assessment, including geophysical survey and test excavation
Appendix J – Relevant Monaghan County Development Plan 2025–2031 policies and extractsRECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 12
KEY DOCUMENTARY REFERENCES USED IN THIS SUBMISSION
Uisce Éireann FOI Record 13: Records of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance works, equipment failures and
tanker loads removed; including 38 tanker loads (25 Nov–5 Dec 2025) and 43 tanker loads (9–23 Dec 2025).
Uisce Éireann FOI Record 10: 26 November 2025 correspondence recording that there was “no process at this plant
currently” and that sludge was being removed by tanker.
Uisce Éireann FOI / January 2026 operational records: Records concerning recurring WWTP problems, lack of inlet
screening, storm-related rag carryover and repeated RBC chain failures.
Uisce Éireann correspondence – RAS pump, 21 April 2026: Internal correspondence recording removal of the RAS
pump for repair/replacement and the resulting need for sludge to be tankered off site.
Uisce Éireann pollution log – 30 January 2026: Formal record of a reported possible wastewater pollution incident
following severe flooding on 27 January 2026, with photographs supplied.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Further Information cover letter, 23 June 2026: Applicant's description of 44
dwellings and response to third-party submissions.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – CEMP: CEMP describes the proposal as 45 dwelling houses, creating an unresolved
inconsistency with the Further Information cover letter.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Lighting Report / Lighting Layout: Submitted lighting specification identifies 4000K
street luminaires and 6m lighting columns; layout also identifies 3000K Ballard fittings.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Environmental Protection Plan Checklist: Records Major Lough Stream_010 as poor
status and at risk, and records extreme groundwater vulnerability.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Riparian Buffer Zone report: Sets out the ecological and water-quality function of
riparian buffers and recommends a site-tailored buffer approach.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Archaeological Impact Assessment: Geophysical survey and test excavation
identified two archaeological features, including a pit/hearth and possible kiln; licenced monitoring is
recommended.
Policy references: Monaghan County Development Plan 2025–2031, including WWP 1 (public water and wastewater
capacity), GIO 4/GIP 1 (green infrastructure and biodiversity), LP 1/LP 3 (lighting), and relevant flood-risk,
water-quality, transport and development-management provisions.
Uisce Éireann FOI Record 13: Records of scheduled and unscheduled maintenance works, equipment failures and
tanker loads removed; including 38 tanker loads (25 Nov–5 Dec 2025) and 43 tanker loads (9–23 Dec 2025).
Uisce Éireann FOI Record 10: 26 November 2025 correspondence recording that there was “no process at this plant
currently” and that sludge was being removed by tanker.
Uisce Éireann FOI / January 2026 operational records: Records concerning recurring WWTP problems, lack of inlet
screening, storm-related rag carryover and repeated RBC chain failures.
Uisce Éireann correspondence – RAS pump, 21 April 2026: Internal correspondence recording removal of the RAS
pump for repair/replacement and the resulting need for sludge to be tankered off site.
Uisce Éireann pollution log – 30 January 2026: Formal record of a reported possible wastewater pollution incident
following severe flooding on 27 January 2026, with photographs supplied.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Further Information cover letter, 23 June 2026: Applicant's description of 44 dwellings
and response to third-party submissions.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – CEMP: CEMP describes the proposal as 45 dwelling houses, creating an unresolved
inconsistency with the Further Information cover letter.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Lighting Report / Lighting Layout: Submitted lighting specification identifies 4000K street
luminaires and 6m lighting columns; layout also identifies 3000K Ballard fittings.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Environmental Protection Plan Checklist: Records Major Lough Stream_010 as poor
status and at risk, and records extreme groundwater vulnerability.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Riparian Buffer Zone report: Sets out the ecological and water-quality function of riparian
buffers and recommends a site-tailored buffer approach.
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Archaeological Impact Assessment: Geophysical survey and test excavation identified
two archaeological features, including a pit/hearth and possible kiln; licenced monitoring is recommended.RECEIVED: 10/08/2026
Planning Ref. 25/60489 – Formal Objection / Observation | Page 13
Policy references: Monaghan County Development Plan 2025–2031, including WWP 1 (public water and wastewater
capacity), GIO 4/GIP 1 (green infrastructure and biodiversity), LP 1/LP 3 (lighting), and relevant flood-risk,
water-quality, transport and development-management provisions.RECEIVED: 10/08/2026