Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2560410 - Appeal NotificationOur Case Number: PL -501960 -MN -26 Planning Authority Reference Number: 2560410 Planning Department Monaghan County Council Council Offices No.1 Dublin Street Monaghan Co. Monaghan Date: 27 August 2026 An Coimisiun Pleanala MON. CO. CO. PLANNING SECTION 28 AUG 2026 Re: Retention of internal alterations to approved plans under 20/155 including conversion of attic of for the provision of 9. bedrooms, alterations to layout of ground and first floor, repurposing of ground floor meeting room to kitchen and laundry facilities and all associated site works. Treacys Hotel, Losset Kingscourt Road, Carrickmacross, Co. 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, Tell Tel (01) 858 8100 GlaoAitiuil 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 D01 V902 D01 V902 (v) particulars of the applicant's interest in the land or structure, as supplied to the planning authority, (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 -501960 -MN -26) the request at 1 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: https://forms.gov.ie/en/68e6334b054d8f2739f8ad5b Response ID Date cuhmitted Check if you can appeal to An Coimisit n Pleanala 1. What type of appeal are you making? 2. Select the statement that applies to you 3. During the appeal we will post/email information and items to the 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 appellant/agent as selected above by email, Please confirm that you are satisfied to receive correspondence by email AN COM SIUNPLEANALA LDG- 2 4 AUG 20261 6a8c4af5e8854447 b5792iie _ _L A Type: M: „ice 24/08/2026 Dy. First -party appeal (I lodged the original application to the planning authority) I am an agent acting on behalf of the appellant The agent acting on behalf of the appellant or prescribed body Yes 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 No attached to a permission by the planning authority? 7. Does your appeal include retention? Yes 8. Does your appeal relate to commercial development? Yes 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 Leah Unicorn Ltd 13. Is the appellant/company's address In the Republic of Ireland? Yes 14. Address Treacys Hotel, Losset, Kingscourt Road, Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan Ireland 15. Phone number +353429662660 16. 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 17. Agent's full name/Company name 18. Is your address in the Republic of Ireland? 19. Address 20. Phone number Ian Doyle Planning Consultant Yes WOODLEIGH CORNWALL KILLURIN WEXFORD Y21F795 Ireland +353868576040 Details about the proposed development **This section asks for details about the planning authority decision you wish to appeal** ---------- 21. Planning authority Monaghan County Council 22. Planning authority register reference number 25/60410 23. Address of proposed development Treacys Hotel, Losset, Kingscourt Road, Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan Ireland Grounds for appeal 24. Attachment describing the grounds of your appeal (planning reasons First_Party_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 Coimisiun 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.) If you have added attachments, submitting the form may take a few moments. Thanks for your patience IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT Monaghan County Council Planning Ref. 25/60410 Applicant: Leah Unicorn Ltd. The Secretary, An Coimisiun Pleanala 64 Marlborough Street Dublin 1 D01 V902 Ireland 24/08/2024 Re: First Party Appeal against Monaghan County Council Planning Ref. 25/60410 Fee applicable: A7 Commercial. Retention no EIAR or NIS: €4500 "Retention of internal alterations to previous approved plans under 20/155 including the following: 1. Conversion of attic of 528.41sq.m. floor area for the provision of 9 no. bedrooms, associated stairs and lift core. 2. Alterations to previously approved layout of ground floor in relation to 11 no. bedrooms, storage and staircase locations. 3. Alterations to previously approved layout on first floor in relation to bedroom, storage and staircase locations. 4. Repurposing of existing ground floor meeting room (62.00sq.m.) to additional kitchen and laundry facilities. 5. All associated site development work Significant further information received relates to submitted, Bus timetable, site layout plan, Certificate of compliance and Environmental Protection Checklist at Treacy's Hotel, Losset, Kingscourt Road, Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan." A Chara, This Appeal Statement has been prepared by Ian Doyle, Planning Consultant (Woodleigh, Cornwall, Killurin, Enniscorthy, Co. Wexford) on behalf of Leah Unicorn Ltd. (Treacys Hotel, Losset, Kingscourt Road, Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan) in support of an appeal against the decision of Monaghan County Council to refuse retention permission under Planning Ref. 25/60410 in respect of internal alterations to the existing accommodation building at Treacys Hotel, Losset, Kingscourt Road, Carrickmacross, Co. Monaghan. The application seeks retention permission for the following works: • Conversion of existing attic floor space to provide 9 no. additional bedrooms together with associated circulation space and lift core. • Alterations to the previously approved ground floor layout in respect of bedroom, storage and staircase arrangements. • Alterations to the previously approved first floor layout in respect of bedroom, storage and staircase arrangements. • Repurposing of an existing ground floor meeting room to provide additional kitchen and laundry facilities. IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT All associated site development works. The retained development is entirely internal in nature and does not involve any extension to the footprint, height or alterations to the external appearance of the building. OVERVIEW OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL This appeal concerns the proper planning assessment of the structural alterations described above which are proposed to be retained and which include the provision for nine additional bedrooms. However, contrary of the approach of the planning authority, the application falls to be assessed in light of the fact that the principle of the use of the subject premises as an accommodation centre has long been established since the parent permission was granted under reg. ref. 97/552. This Appeal Statement will demonstrate that the Planning Authority did not correctly assess the application that was before it. The first party appellant submits that the development sought to be retained should have been assessed on its own planning merits in the context of the permissions already granted for the premises. As will be demonstrated below, the retention of the structural alterations, including the addition of nine bedrooms, will not give rise to unacceptable planning impacts and the decision to refuse permission should therefore be set aside. The planning authority did not assess the application on this basis but instead treated the application as if it was a de novo application for an accommodation centre for protected persons and relied on policies under its development plan which were not relevant to the actual application before it. This was a fundamentally flawed approach. The planning authority treated the proposed development as if it involved the development of an integrated living centre or accommodation centre falling within the scope of its policy under WSP 1 and Section 15.10.8 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031, notwithstanding the fact that the principle of the use of the building on the site for residential accommodation had already been established under the parent permission 97/552. That permission continues to endure for the benefit of the land, as will be discussed in more detail below. The planning authority has effectively sought to revisit the issue of the suitability of the location for an accommodation centre, despite the fact that such a use has long been established on the site. The use of the premises either as a hotel or as an accommodation centre for protected persons both fall within the scope of the permitted use granted under the parent permission 97/552. The applicant has separately referred a question to the planning authority under section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 ('the 2000 Act') to determine whether the change of use of the premises from use as a hotel to use as an accommodation centre for protected persons enjoys the benefit of an exemption under Class 14(j)), Second Schedule, Part 1, of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended ('the 2001 Regulations'). While seeking to have the exempted status clarified in the context of the separate procedure under 'rJ IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT section 5, the applicant nonetheless relies on the permission granted under reg. ref. 97/552 as supporting the authorised status of the current use for the accommodation of protected persons. In that context, the use of the premises as a hotel did not result in any abandonment of the more general residential accommodation use permitted under reg. ref. 97/552; both hotel use and use as an accommodation centre fall within the scope of this permission. The reference under planning permission 17/155 to the existing hotel use at the date of that application is consistent with the continuation of the permitted use of the premises for residential accommodation as per the parent permission under reg. ref. 97/552. It is clear from the grant of permission under reg. ref.17/155 that the planning authority accepted that use as a hotel was permissible within the scope of the parent permission reg. ref. 97/552. PLANNING HISTORY The subject property has been the subject of a number of planning permissions over an extended period. The relevant planning history is summarised below. Planning Permission Ref. 97/552 Planning Permission Ref. 97/552 granted permission for the retention of development described as: "Retain 35 no. bedrooms incl. facility for disabled people, new restaurant, the roofing and complete refurbishment of the already existing night club known as the Oasis Night Club." This permission established the provision of overnight accommodation within the building together with associated ancillary facilities, including dining facilities. In effect, this permission allowed the premises to provide the same facilities as would be provided in a hotel, though not described as such. Planning Permission Ref. 17/155 Planning Permission Ref. 17/155 subsequently granted permission for works described as: "Works to an existing hotel..." including the change of use of part of the ground floor, additional bedrooms, extensions, alterations to the existing building, revised access arrangements, car parking, landscaping and associated site development works. Planning Permission Ref. 20/155 Planning Permission Ref. 20/155 subsequently authorised further alterations and extensions to the premises, including additional bedroom accommodation and 3 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT associated ancillary development. In that context, the permission formed part of the continuing development of the premises for overnight accommodation, with the authorised works directed principally towards additional bedroom accommodation and associated facilities. It did not purport to grant a new underlying use of the premises or to confine the accommodation use established by the earlier planning history to a different operational format. The present application does not seek to revisit or alter the development authorised under Planning Permission Ref. 20/155. Rather, it seeks retention permission for identified internal alterations carried out during the implementation of that permission, including the provision of 9 additional bedrooms and associated internal reconfiguration. Section 5 Declaration Separately, the appellant submitted a request for a declaration under Section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) (Ref. EX25/102) seeking a determination regarding the planning status of the current occupation of the premises. That declaration remains undetermined and is the subject of a separate statutory process. The applicant intends to pursue the section 5 referral following the determination of this application. Current Appeal The present appeal arises from Monaghan County Council's refusal of Planning Ref. 25/60410, which seeks retention permission for internal alterations carried out within the existing building. The retained development is confined to physical works within the building and does not involve any extension to the building envelope or external alterations. SCOPE OF THE APPEAL Before addressing the Grounds of Appeal in detail, it is important to clearly define the scope of the application that was before the Planning Authority and, consequently, the scope of the present appeal. The subject application seeks retention permission for identified internal alterations carried out within an existing accommodation building. Those works comprise the conversion of attic floor space to provide 9 additional bedrooms together with associated circulation space and lift core, alterations to previously approved internal layouts at ground and first floor level, the repurposing of an existing meeting room to provide additional kitchen and laundry facilities, together with all associated site development works. M IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT The application does not seek permission for a new building, an extension to the existing building, or any alteration to the external appearance of the development. Equally, the application does not seek permission for a new accommodation facility or the establishment of a new land use. The Planning Authority had separately received a request for a declaration under Section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) (Ref. EX25/102), on particular, as to whether the current use of the premises for the accommodation of persons seeking international protection fell within the scope of the exemption under Class 14(j)), Second Schedule, Part 1, of the 2001 Regulations. That statutory process remained live and undetermined throughout the assessment of the present application. The present appeal does not invite An Coimisiun Pleanala to determine the outstanding Section 5 Declaration, nor does it seek to pre-empt or prejudice that separate statutory process. The purpose of this appeal is confined to determining whether the Planning Authority correctly assessed the planning application that was before it, namely an application for retention of identified physical works within an existing accommodation building. It is accepted that the development proposed to be retained, including the addition of nine bedrooms, must be considered as an extension or expansion of the existing use of the premises as a whole (albeit a relatively modest one) but the planning authority is incorrect in concluding that "the proposal now seeks to continue protected persons accommodation." The applicant is entitled to continue to rely on the parent permission under reg. ref. 97/552 for the permitted use of the premises for residential accommodation and the continuation of the use for the accommodation of protected persons is not the subject of the present application nor does the retention sought in this case seek to authorise the use of the premises for the accommodation of protected persons. Accordingly, the principal issue for determination in this appeal is whether the retention of the structural alterations and their use is acceptable having regard to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and/or whether it would give rise to adverse planning impacts such as would merit a refusal of planning permission. It is the appellant's submission that the Planning Authority departed from that question by addressing matters that extended beyond the scope of the application before it. CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING AUTHORITY'S REASONS FOR REFUSAL AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL Four principal grounds of appeal are set out below, to be considered against the background context set out above. Appeal Ground 1- The planning authority incorrectly concluded that planning permission was granted for the use of the premises as a hotel only, as a 5 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT consequence of which it further erred in concluding that the accommodation use would be inconsistent with a use as a hotel. Refusal Reason No. 1 states as follows: 1. The established and permitted use of the premises is as a hotel. Information received by the Planning Authority on the 16/06/2026 confirms that the premises is currently being used to accommodate persons seeking international protection and is not operating as a hotel. The planning status of this accommodation use has not been formally established. Whilst a Section 5 Declaration request has been submitted in respect of the use, that process remains ongoing and no determination has been made. Accordingly, to permit the retention of the development as proposed, to serve the accommodation use currently occurring on -site, would be contrary to the established and permitted hotel use granted under previous planning permissions. To permit the development as proposed would therefore be contrary and sustainable development of the area. In Refusal Reason No. 1, the planning authority states that the "established and permitted use of the premises is as a hotel". However, as can be seen from the planning history and as explained further below, no permission was ever applied for or granted for hotel use, per se. As already discussed, above permission was obtained under the parent permission 97/552 for residential accommodation, without confining the use to any particular operational format. That permission continues to enure for the benefit of the land. Section 39(1) of the 2000 Act provides as follows 39.—(1) Where permission to develop land or for the retention of development is granted under this Part, then, except as may be otherwise provided by the permission, the grant of permission shall enure for the benefit of the land and of all persons for the time being interested therein. [Emphasis added] Reason no. 1 is incorrect in referring to "to the established and permitted hotel use granted under previous planning permissions". The planning authority does not identify the permissions to which it is referring. In fact, permission was never sought or granted for hotel use. The parent permission 97/552 was for general use for residential accommodation and was not specific to hotel use. Furthermore, while planning permission 17/155 refers to the existing hotel use at the date of that application, permission was not sought for hotel use under that application. The existing use of the premises as a hotel at that time was authorised by and was consistent with the parent permission under reg. ref. no. 97/552, which was for general use for residential accommodation. Similarly, the current use of the premises for persons seeking international A IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT protection is not in any way inconsistent with the continuation of the permitted use of the premises for residential accommodation as per the parent permission under reg. ref. 97/552. The planning authority reference the fact that the first party appellant expressed an intention in the context of the application under reg. ref. 20/155 to revert to hotel use. That intention remained as an intention and never became a term or condition of the permission. On that basis, the expression of intent could not be regarded as binding on the appellant as if it were an enforceable term of the application. The Supreme Court (Clarke J delivering judgment) in Lanigan v Barry [20161 1 IR 656, has made a clear distinction between expressions of general intent and the terms of a permission; the latter are enforceable, the former are not. The planning authority did not give proper consideration to the planning history of the subject premises and the broad residential accommodation use in respect of which the parent permission was granted and has incorrectly concluded that planning permission was granted for a hotel, per se. While the use of the premises as a hotel was clearly accepted by the planning authority as being an authorised use under planning permission 17/155, it is inaccurate to suggest that the use of the premises was confined to hotel use by the parent permission reg. ref. 97/552 or planning permission 17/155. The planning authority concluded in its assessment of the current application that the retained development "serves the accommodation use currently occurring on site" and that, because the planning status of that use had not been formally established, it would be premature to grant retention permission for the works the subject of this application. However, the section 5 referral relates to the question as to whether an exemption is available under Class 14(j). The first party appellant relies on the parent permission and subsequent permissions as authorising a general use for residential accommodation purposes as permitted by the parent permission under reg. ref. 97/552. The making of an application for retention permission does not give rise to an estoppel (as per the Supreme Court decision in William P Keeling Ltd. v Fingal County Council [2005] 2 IR 108) and, in the same way, a section 5 referral does not amount to an admission that planning permission is required for the activity the subject of the referral. In that regard, the first party appellant reiterates that it relies on the parent permission as establishing the principle of a general use for residential accommodation on the premises. The current application is for internal and structural alterations to the premises and does not seek any change of use from the permitted use. The application before the Commission therefore involves structural works and a relatively minor expansion of that use, including the addition of nine bedrooms. This is the development the retention of which should have been assessed by the planning authority and which now falls to be assessed by the Commission, rather than the acceptability of use of the overall premises for residential accommodation, as this use has already been established as a matter of principle under the parent permission. The planning authority is incorrect in referring, in reason no. 1, to "the established and permitted hotel use granted under previous planning permissions" and relying on that as a basis for refusal. Instead, the planning authority should have had regard to the established and permitted use of the premises for residential accommodation on foot of 7 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT the parent permission. The correct approach, therefore, was for the planning authority to consider whether the proposed retention of the structural alterations to the premises, including the provision of nine additional bedrooms would give rise to adverse planning impacts. It is respectfully submitted that this is the approach which the Commission should now take in assessing this application. The planning authority did not identify any adverse planning impacts which would be caused by the discrete development which is the subject of the current application, as distinct from the use of the overall premises which was already an established and permitted use. The planning impacts of the development sought to be retained are assessed separately under Appeal Ground 4 below. The Relationship Between the Present Appeal and the Pending Section 5 Declaration The application before the Planning Authority sought retention permission for identified physical works carried out within an existing accommodation building. Those works comprise internal alterations, the provision of 9 additional bedrooms within the existing building envelope, revisions to internal layouts and the repurposing of an existing meeting room to provide kitchen and laundry facilities. The current application does not seek permission for a new building, a new accommodation facility, or any determination as to whether the use of the premises as a whole enjoyed the benefit of the specific exemption under Class 14(j), Second Schedule, Part 1 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 ('Class 14(j)') , which question remains, the subject of a separate referral process under Section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended). While seeking to have the exempted status clarified in the context of the separate procedure under section 5, the applicant nonetheless relies in the context of the current application and appeal on the permission 97/552 as supporting the authorised status of the current use for the accommodation of protected persons. In that context, the use of the premises as a hotel did not result in any abandonment of the general residential accommodation use permitted under reg. ref. 97/552. Both hotel use and use as an accommodation centre fall within the scope of the parent permission. The outcome of the present application will determine whether the first party appellant will be permitted to retain the unauthorised structural works. Until that decision has been made, there is no practical benefit in the first party appellant proceeding with the section 5 referral but it proposes to do so once the Commission has made its decision. The applicant's intention remains the return of the premises, in the medium term, to a standard hotel operation when the current urgent requirement for the accommodation of persons seeking international protection no longer arises. l:3 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT In the meantime, the accommodation provided in the context of the current application will remain bedroom -based accommodation as initially permitted under Reg. ref. 97/552 with shared facilities and common areas. The retained works do not alter the overall operational characteristics of the building and do not give rise to any additional material planning impacts beyond those associated with the authorised accommodation use of the premises. Appeal Ground 2 - The planning authority erred in concluding that the development proposed to be retained would be contrary to Policy WSP 1 and section 15.10.8 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025- 2031. Both Reasons no. 2 and no. 3 rely on this erroneous conclusion. Refusal Reason No. 2 states: "2. Having regard to the current use of the premises as accommodation for protected persons, the scale of accommodation provided, the rural location of the site, its separation from Carrickmacross and other settlement centres, the limited accessibility of services and facilities, and the reliance upon organised transport arrangements, the Planning Authority is of the opinion that the retention of the additional bedroom accommodation and associated alterations represents an unsustainable form of development in this rural location. The proposed development has not been demonstrated to comply with Policy WSP 1 and Section 15.10.8 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031, which require such accommodation to be located within a serviced and sustainable setting. The Planning Authority further notes that the Core Strategy seeks to promote sustainable and balanced development through the settlement hierarchy, with population and development growth directed towards settlements with appropriate infrastructure, services and facilities. The applicant has failed to satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed development is consistent with this approach. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy WSP 1 and Section 15.10.8, the settlement hierarchy, Core Strategy and Housing Strategy of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area." In response to both the second and third reasons for refusal, we submit, that the planning authority misapplied Policy WSP1 and Section 15.10.8 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. The planning authority treated the proposed development as if it involved the development of an integrated living centre or accommodation centre falling within the scope of its policy under WSP 1 and Section 15.10.8 of the Development Plan, notwithstanding the fact that these policies relate to the establishment of new integrated living or accommodation centres. However, in the present case, such a use had already been established under the parent permission 97/552. E IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT Planning Authority's Assessment The Planning Authority concluded that the proposal failed to comply with Policy WSP1 and Section 15.10.8 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 on the basis that the development would support continued accommodation for persons seeking international protection in an unsustainable rural location, contrary to the Core Strategy and Housing Strategy of the Development Plan. Misapplication of Development Plan Policy Section 15.10.8 and Policy WSP1 are concerned with ensuring that proposals for serviced and sustainable neighbourhoods, integrated living centres and accommodation centres are appropriately served by infrastructure, transport, community facilities and essential services. The policy requires the Planning Authority to assess whether adequate capacity exists to support the proposed development having regard to the range of available services and the integration of future residents within the local community. The first party appellant does not dispute the importance of these policy objectives. However, the Planning Authority's assessment fails to distinguish between the purpose of the policy and the nature of the application before it. The present application does not seek permission for a new accommodation centre, the establishment of a new residential community or the development of a new serviced neighbourhood. Rather, it seeks retention permission for internal alterations carried out within an existing accommodation building. Notwithstanding this distinction, the first party appellant responded comprehensively to the Further Information request by providing detailed information regarding transport arrangements, access to services, wastewater treatment capacity, fire safety certification, accessibility, management arrangements and the operational context of the premises. A dedicated transport timetable was submitted demonstrating regular connectivity with Carrickmacross, updated engineering certification confirmed that the wastewater treatment system has a design capacity of 290 Population Equivalent (PE), and supporting Building Control documentation confirmed that Fire Safety and Disability Access Certificates had been granted for the relevant works. Despite this information, the Planning Authority's decision does not identify which specific requirements of Policy WSP1 or Section 15.10.8 are relevant to the subject matter of the retention application, which does not seek to establish a new use. Furthermore, the planning authority does not explain why the extensive technical information submitted in response to the request for Further Information failed to demonstrate that the retained development could be appropriately served by existing infrastructure and services. Instead, the decision reaches a conclusion of non-compliance with Policy WSP1 or Section 15.10.8 without engaging with the detailed technical evidence placed before it. 10 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT The retained development comprises physical accommodation infrastructure within an existing accommodation building. The works include additional bedrooms, circulation space, a lift core, alterations to internal layouts and the provision of ancillary kitchen and laundry facilities. These works are not unique to any particular operational model. They are physical elements of an accommodation building and are capable of serving overnight accommodation irrespective of the category of occupants lawfully accommodated within the premises. From a planning perspective, the retained works perform the same physical function whether the building operates as a hotel, guest accommodation or accommodation for persons seeking international protection. The works do not alter the external appearance of the building, its relationship with surrounding lands, its servicing characteristics or the environmental demands placed upon the site. The first party appellant submits that the Planning Authority misapplied Policy WSP1 and Section 15.10.8 by applying those provisions to the current occupation of the premises rather than assessing the planning merits of the physical works proposed to be retained and their associated use. As this fundamental error underpins both the second and third reasons for refusal, these reasons cannot be allowed to stand. Moreover, the planning merits of the retained physical works should be assessed by reference to their physical characteristics and their impacts on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, rather than by reference to the identity or category of persons accommodated within the building. Appeal Ground 3 - Failure of Planning Authority to Engage with the Submitted Evidence During the assessment of the application, the Planning Authority issued an extensive Further Information request seeking clarification on matters including transport, wastewater treatment, fire safety, accessibility, servicing, accommodation standards and the operational characteristics of the premises. The appellant responded comprehensively to each request and submitted additional technical reports, engineering certification, transport information, Building Control documentation and supporting planning information. Notwithstanding the information submitted, the Planning Authority concluded that the proposal had failed to satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with the relevant provisions of the Development Plan and that insufficient information had been provided to establish the acceptability of the development. The Further Information response addressed each of the matters identified by the Planning Authority. 11 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT In particular, the appellant submitted: • updated engineering certification confirming that the wastewater treatment system approved under Planning Permission Ref. 20/155 had been installed in accordance with the approved design, was operational and possessed sufficient capacity to accommodate a loading of 290 Population Equivalent (PE); • confirmation that Fire Safety and Disability Access Certificates had been granted together with Building Control documentation confirming the relevant certification process had been completed for the works in question; • a transport timetable demonstrating regular connectivity between the premises and Carrickmacross together with supporting information regarding access to services and facilities; • detailed information regarding management arrangements, servicing, accommodation standards and the regulatory framework applicable to the operation of the premises. While the Planning Authority was not obliged to agree with the conclusions reached by the appellant or its consultants, it was required to assess the information submitted and explain why it considered that information insufficient. Neither the refusal decision nor the accompanying Planner's Report identifies any substantive deficiency within the technical documentation submitted. Instead, the decision reaches broad conclusions that the proposal has failed to demonstrate compliance without explaining why the evidence provided was considered to be inadequate or why the professional opinions submitted should not be accepted. The appellant respectfully submits that the Planning Authority failed to properly engage with the technical evidence that it specifically requested during the Further Information process. In the absence of any reasoned assessment identifying deficiencies within that evidence, the conclusions reached in Refusal Reasons No. 2 and No. 3 cannot be sustained. Appeal Ground 4— The Retained Development is Acceptable Having Regard to the Proper Planning and Sustainable Development of the Area Relevant Refusal Reasons: Refusal Reasons No. 2 and No. 3 Planning Assessment The development sought to be retained comprises internal alterations to the existing accommodation building, including the provision of 9 no. additional bedrooms within the existing building envelope together with associated circulation space, lift core, internal reconfiguration and ancillary kitchen and laundry facilities. 12 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT In assessing the planning merits of the development sought to be retained, regard must be had to the nature and scale of the works and to any additional planning impacts arising from them over and above those associated with the established accommodation use of the premises. The additional 9 no. bedrooms represent a relatively modest increase in accommodation within premises where the principle of substantial overnight accommodation has already been established. The relevant planning question is therefore whether the additional bedrooms and associated internal alterations give rise to any identifiable adverse planning impact. In quantitative terms, the premises currently contains 50 no. bedrooms, with the development sought to be retained providing a further 9 no. bedrooms, resulting in a total of 59 no. bedrooms. The additional accommodation therefore represents an increase of 18% in bedroom numbers. Viewed in the context of the scale of the established accommodation use, this is a relatively modest expansion, accommodated entirely within the existing building envelope. The appropriate planning assessment is therefore directed towards the incremental effects arising from those additional 9 no. bedrooms, rather than reconsidering the planning impacts associated with the established 50 - bedroom accommodation use as a whole. Traffic and Access The retained development does not involve any alteration to the existing vehicular access or the established circulation arrangements serving the premises. The additional 9 no. bedrooms represent a limited increase relative to the existing 50 -bedroom accommodation capacity and do not materially alter the nature or intensity of the established accommodation use. The Further Information response provided details of the transport arrangements serving the premises, including a timetable demonstrating regular connectivity between the site and Carrickmacross. This information demonstrated that the premises is not dependent solely upon private -car access and that arrangements are in place to facilitate access to the town and its services. Having regard to the limited scale of the additional accommodation, the established access arrangements and the transport information submitted, there is no basis to conclude that the additional 9 no. bedrooms would generate a material traffic or road -safety impact or increase car dependency to any material extent. Residential and Visual Amenity The retained development is entirely contained within the existing building envelope. It does not increase the footprint or height of the building, alter its 13 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT external appearance or materially change its physical relationship with adjoining lands. Accordingly, the development gives rise to no additional overlooking, overshadowing, overbearing impact or visual intrusion. Nor does it materially alter the relationship between the existing premises and neighbouring properties. The additional bedrooms and associated internal alterations therefore do not result in any material interference with the residential or visual amenities of the area. Wastewater and Environmental Protection The potential increase in loading arising from the additional accommodation was specifically addressed during the Further Information process. Updated engineering certification was submitted confirming that the wastewater treatment system approved under Planning Permission Ref. 20/155 had been installed in accordance with the approved design, was operational and possessed sufficient capacity to accommodate a loading of 290 Population Equivalent (PE). The relevant issue is therefore not simply whether the development increases occupancy, but whether the wastewater infrastructure serving the premises has sufficient capacity to accommodate that increase. The engineering evidence submitted confirms that it does. The additional 9 no. bedrooms can be accommodated within the demonstrated design capacity of the wastewater treatment system and, consequently, no material wastewater, environmental health or other adverse environmental impact arises from the retained development and its impact on water services. Fire Safety and Accessibility The Further Information response confirmed that Fire Safety and Disability Access Certificates have been granted in respect of the relevant works and supporting Building Control documentation was submitted to the Planning Authority. The internal alterations have therefore been subject to the relevant statutory certification processes in respect of fire safety and accessibility. There is no identified planning consideration under either heading which would warrant refusal of retention permission. 14 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT Scale, Character and Nature of the Development The development does not extend the building footprint, increase its height or alter its external form or appearance. The 9 no. additional bedrooms are accommodated within existing attic floor space and the remaining works comprise internal reconfiguration and ancillary accommodation facilities. The development therefore does not introduce a new form of development onto the site. The bedrooms, circulation space, lift core, kitchen and laundry facilities are all functionally consistent with the established accommodation use of the premises. The increase from 50 no. to 59 no. bedrooms must also be considered in that context. While it represents an expansion of the established use, it does not materially alter the overall scale, character or physical form of the premises. Access to Services and Carrickmacross The Planning Authority placed particular emphasis on the rural location of the premises, its separation from Carrickmacross and reliance upon organised transport arrangements in Refusal Reason No. 2. However, those considerations principally relate to the established accommodation use of the premises as a whole. The development now before the Commission does not establish that accommodation use at this location; it provides 9 no. additional bedrooms within premises containing an existing 50 no. bedrooms. Furthermore, the applicant responded to the Planning Authority's concerns by submitting details of the transport arrangements and a timetable demonstrating regular connectivity with Carrickmacross, Accordingly, while the accessibility of the premises is a relevant consideration in assessing the incremental expansion proposed, the provision of an additional 9 no. bedrooms does not materially alter the established relationship between the premises and Carrickmacross or create a new dependency upon services or transport arrangements that did not previously exist. Overall Planning Assessment Having regard to the foregoing, the development sought to be retained: • represents an increase from 50 no. to 59 no. bedrooms, equivalent to an 18% increase in bedroom accommodation within an established accommodation premises; 15 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT • is accommodated entirely within the existing building envelope and does not increase the footprint, height or external scale of the development; • does not materially alter the existing access or circulation arrangements and does not give rise to an identified traffic or road - safety impact; • does not result in overlooking, overshadowing, visual intrusion or any other material interference with adjoining residential or visual amenity; • can be accommodated within the demonstrated capacity of the existing wastewater treatment system; • has been subject to the relevant Fire Safety and Disability Access certification processes; and • does not materially alter the established relationship between the premises and Carrickmacross or the existing arrangements for accessing services and facilities. The appellant therefore submits that the additional 9 no. bedrooms and associated internal alterations do not give rise to any material adverse planning impact. Basis for Grant of Retention Permission Having regard to: (a) the planning history of the site and the established principle of substantial overnight residential accommodation at the premises; (b) the nature and scale of the development sought to be retained, comprising internal alterations and 9 no. additional bedrooms within the existing building envelope; (c) the fact that the additional bedrooms represent an increase from 50 no. to 59 no. bedrooms and therefore a relatively modest expansion of the established accommodation use; (d) the absence of any increase in the footprint, height or external scale of the existing building; (e) the established access arrangements and transport information submitted demonstrating connectivity with Carrickmacross; (f) the demonstrated capacity of the wastewater treatment system to accommodate the development; 16 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT (g) the Fire Safety and Disability Access certification applicable to the relevant works; and (h) the absence of any material adverse effect on traffic safety, environmental protection, public health, residential amenity or the visual amenities of the area, it is submitted that the development sought to be retained is acceptable having regard to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and that retention permission should be granted. CONCLUSION The appellant respectfully submits that the decision of Monaghan County Council cannot be sustained for the reasons set out in this Appeal Statement. The appeal has demonstrated that the Planning Authority did not assess the planning application that was before it. In particular, the planning authority erred in concluding that the only permitted use of the premises was as a hotel, notwithstanding the fact that the principle of the use of the subject premises for residential accommodation was established when the parent permission was granted under reg. ref. 97/552 Rather, the assessment proceeded on the basis of the acceptability in principle of a residential accommodation use at this location. The planning authority wrongly took the view that the planning status of the premises was uncertain because the question as to whether the premises could avail of the exemption under Class 14(j), which is the subject of a separate statutory declaration process under Section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), has not yet been determined. However, the first party appellant is entitled to rely on the parent permission and subsequent permissions as authorising a general accommodation use which is not confined to hotel use. In doing so, the Planning Authority failed to distinguish between the structural alterations which it is sought to retain and the use of the premises as a whole. That distinction is fundamental to the proper assessment of the application and materially influenced the conclusions reached in both the Planner's Report and the decision to refuse permission. The appeal has further demonstrated that the Planning Authority misapplied the relevant provisions of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 by assessing the application against policy objectives directed towards the establishment and operation of accommodation centres, rather than the planning merits of the retained physical works before it. Notwithstanding the above, the appellant provided comprehensive technical information in response to the Further Information request addressing transport, wastewater treatment, Building Control certification, servicing and operational matters. Neither the refusal decision 17 IAN DOYLE I PLANNING CONSULTANT nor the Planner's Report identifies any substantive deficiency in that information or explains why the evidence submitted was insufficient to address the matters raised by the Planning Authority. Having regard to the nature of the retained development, the absence of any identified adverse physical planning impacts and the information submitted throughout the application process, the appellant submits that the retained development is acceptable having regard to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. This Appeal Statement has demonstrated that the refusal of Planning Ref. 25/60410 arose from an assessment that extended beyond the scope of the application before the Planning Authority. The retained development comprises internal physical works within an existing accommodation building and should have been assessed on its own planning merits. For the reasons set out in this Appeal Statement, the appellant respectfully requests that An Coimisiun Pleanala allow the appeal, set aside the decision of Monaghan County Council and grant retention permission for the development the subject of Planning Ref. 25/60410. I trust the above is in order. If you require further discussions with regards to the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind Regards Ian Doyle, Planning Consultant BA (HONS) Town & Country Planning. BTP 18