Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2560481 - Appeal Correspondence No 2Our Case Number: PL -502106 -MN -26 Planning Authority Reference Number: 2560481 Planning Department Monaghan County Council Council Offices No.1 Dublin Street Monaghan Co. Monaghan Date: Re: 16 September 2026 kJNNING 17 SEP 2026 Development of 28 Dwellings and all other associated site wo Dernaglug , Doohamlet, Co.Monaghan Dear Sir/Madam, An Coimisiun Pleanala Enclosed is a copy of an appeal under the Planning and Development Act, 2000, (as amended). 1. The planning authority is required to forward specified documents to the Commission under the provisions of section 128 and section 37(1)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, (as amended). You are requested to submit these pilot digital planning application documents to An Coimisiun Pleanala electronically. The documents are to be uploaded on our digital portal as agreed with the training from the LGMA. Please upload, within a period of 2 weeks beginning on the date of this letter, the following documents:- (i) a copy of the planning application made to the planning authority and a copy of any drawings, maps (including ordnance survey number) particulars, evidence, a copy of any environmental impact statement, other written study or further information received or obtained by your authority in accordance with regulations under the Acts. If practicable, the original of any drawing with coloured markings should be provided or a coloured copy, (ii) a copy of any technical or other reports prepared by or for the planning authority in relation to the application, (iii) a certified copy of the relevant Manager's Order giving the decision of the planning authority, (iv) a copy of the notification of decision given to the applicant, (v) particulars of the applicant's interest in the land or structure, as supplied to the planning authority, Tell Tel (01) 858 8100 Glao Aitiuil LoCall 1890 275 175 Facs Fax (01) 872 2684 64 Sraid Maoilbhride 64 Marlborough Street Laithrean Greasain Website www,pleanala.ie Baile Atha Cliath 1 Dublin 1 Riomhphost Email communications@pleanala.ie D01 V902 D01 V902 (vi) a copy of the published notice and a copy of the text of the site notice erected on the land or structure. (vii) a copy of requests (if any) to the applicant for further information relating to the application under appeal together with copies of reply and documents (if any) submitted in response to such requests, (viii) a copy of any written submissions or observations concerning the proposed development made to the planning authority, (ix) a copy of any notices to prescribed bodies/other authorities and any responses to same, (x) a copy of any exemption application/certificate within Part V of the 2000 Act, (as amended), applies, (xi) a copy of the minutes of any pre -planning meetings, (xii) One electronic copy of any Environmental Impact Assessment Report received by the Planning Authority as per Article 97(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, (as amended). 2. To ensure that the Commission has a full and complete set of the material specified above and that it may proceed with full consideration of the appeal, please certify that the planning authority holds no further material relevant to the case coming within the above list of items by signing the certification on page 3 of this letter and returning the letter to the Commission. 3. In addition to the documents mentioned above, please supply the following:- Particulars and relevant documents relating to previous decisions affecting the same site or relating to applications for similar development in near proximity. "History" documents should include; a) Certified Manager's Order, b) the site location, site layout maps, all plans and c) particulars and all internal reports. Copies of I -plan sheets are not adequate. Where your records show that a decision was appealed to the Commission, it would be helpful if you would indicate the Commission's reference. Submissions or observations by the planning authority. 4. As a party to the appeal you may, under section 129 of the 2000 Act, (as amended), make submissions or observations in writing to the Commission in relation to the appeal within a period of 4 weeks beginning on the date of this letter. Please note any submission/observation you wish to make to the Commission CANNOT be uploaded to Sharefile. These submissions can be made in writing to the Commission or can be emailed to appeals@pleanala.ie within the required timeframe. Any submissions or observations received by the Commission outside of that period shall not be considered, and where none have been validly received, the Commission may determine the appeal without further notice to you. Contingency Submission 5. If the decision of your authority was to refuse permission, you should consider whether the authority wishes to make a contingency submission to the Commission as regards appropriate conditions which, in its view, should be attached to a grant of permission should the Commission decide to make such a grant. In particular, your authority may wish to comment on appropriate conditions which might be attached to a permission in accordance with section 48 and/or 49 of the 2000 Planning Act, (as amended), (Development / Supplementary Development Contributions) including any special condition which might be appropriate under section 48(2)(c) of the Act. Any such contingency submission, in circumstances which your authority decided to refuse permission, would be without prejudice to your authority's main submission in support of its decision. Please quote the above appeal reference number in any further correspondence. If you have any queries in the meantime, please contact the undersigned officer of the Commission at appeals@pleanala.ie. I hereby certify that the planning authority has complied with section 128 and section 37(1)(b) of the 2000 Act, (as amended), and that all material relevant to (PL -502106 -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 154 Riverside Drive Red Barns Road Dundalk County Louth Services An Coimisiun Pleanala 64 Marlborough Street Dublin 1 DO1 V902 Dear Sir or Madam 10`h August 2026 FIRST PARTY APPEAL — Doohamlet Construction Ltd. - Planning Ref. No. 25/60481, Dernaglug, Doohamlet, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan. EHP Services, 154 Riverside Drive, Red Barns Road Dundalk, Co. Louth, A91 X8NR has been appointed by Doohamlet Construction Ltd. to submit the enclosed first party appeal against Monaghan County Council's refusal of Planning Ref. No. 25/60481 to residentially develop land at Dernaglug, Doohamlet, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan. Please find enclosed the Client's statement of appeal and a cheque for €1,500.00 in accordance with Class A3 of An Coimisiiln Pleanala's Schedule of Fees and Charges. All correspondence pertaining to this appeal can be forwarded to EHP Services at the above address. Should An Coimisiun Pleanala have any queries regarding this appeal please do not hesitate to contact us at the mobile number or email address set out below. Regards for EHP AN C0IMISIUN PLEANALA LDG- ftt4A`f-0C\ i}tk9 6 ACP- 1 1 SEP 2026 Fee: € )CD Type: Cog Time: I :3 By: itNn environmental leritage 11anning 154 Riverside Drive, Red Barns Road, Dundalk, Co. Louth Tel.: 086 826 8390 Email: ehpservices I @gmail.com Web: www.ehpservices.ie FIRST PARTY APPEAL STATEMENT Planning Ref. No. 2 5/60481 Doohamlet Construction Ltd. Dernaglug, Doohamlet Services DOCUMENT CONTROL SHEET Date Document Title Rev. Prepared by Reviewed by Approved By 02.09.26 0772 - Appeal Statement 1 T. Ewbanks T. Ewbanks 1.1 EHP Services has been appointed by Doohamlet Construction Ltd., Tonnyglasson, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan (hereafter referred to as the Appellant) to submit the enclosed first party appeal against Monaghan County Council's recent decision in respect of Planning Ref. No. 25/60481 and their proposal to residentially develop land at Dernaglug, Doohamlet, Castleblayney, Co. Monaghan. 1.2 A copy of the Council's Notification of Decision to Refuse is attached to Appendix 1 of this statement. 1.3 In accordance with appeal procedures An Coimsiun Pleanala will be furnished with a complete copy of the planning file, associated drawings, maps and assessment reports which will be referenced throughout this appeal. As this appeal should be read in conjunction with the supporting information submitted with Planning Ref. No. 25/60481 we suggest the Inspector thoroughly familiarises himself/herself with the proposed development. 1.4 Having reviewed the County Council's assessment of Planning Ref. No. 25/60481 the Appellant is of the unequivocal opinion that the decision to refuse permission was contrary to national, regional and County strategic objectives as well as policies within the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025- 2031 (MCDP) regarding the urgent need to provide future housing for the County. 1.5 This appeal will set out rational and compelling reasons why the County Council's assessment of the proposed development was in error and how a grant of conditional approval would be consistent with the proper and sustainable development of the surrounding settlement. 1.6 This appeal should be read in conjunction with all the supporting information, plans, drawings and assessment reports provided with the planning application and in response to the County Council's Additional information request. 2.1 The 1.561Ha irregular shaped appeal site is located in the village of Doohamlet, Co. Monaghan which sits 5km (approx.) east of Ballybay and 5.5km (approx.) to the north-west of Castleblayney. It sits to the rear (south) of Nos. 1-12 Doohamlet; an estate of 12no. semi-detached two storey dwellings and bungalows; off the village's 'main street' - the Castleblayney to Ballybay Road (R183) as illustrated in Figure 1 overleaf. Part of the appeal site's north-eastern boundary abuts the All Saint's Parish graveyard. 2.2 The appeal site is a greenfield site bound by a variety of treatments including concrete post and wire fencing and traditional hedging and trees. The site slopes upwards from the adjoining Doohamlet dwellings in a south-easterly direction to a low lying hillock near the centre. The site also slopes sharply downwards along the western and south-western boundaries. The northernmost protrusion of the application site includes a heavily overgrown flat roofed concrete structure. Figure 1 —Site Location Map. Source: www.google.ie/maps (2026) 2.3 For a Tier 4 Settlement the village of Doohamlet is well provided for in both physical and social infrastructure. The village and appeal site have ready access to water, sewerage, power and telecommunication infrastructure to support a development of this nature and scale without comprising or diminishing the capacities of such services which already serve the existing village inhabitants. The appeal site is within minutes walk of a number of social facilities and commercial businesses including: • All Saints Parish Church (Eircode: A75 D952) to the north-east; • OT Fitness Studio (Eircode: A75 FX63) to the north-east; • Connolly's Bar/Lounge & Accommodation (Eircode: A75 CF58) to the north; • Doohamlet Community Park to north; • Doohamlet Community Centre and Child Care (Eircode: A75 YV07) to the north-west; • All Saints' National School (Eircode: A75 YV07) to the north-west; and • Doohamlet Motors (Eircode: A75 KD79) to the west. 3.1 Planning permission is sought for the construction of a 28no. social and affordable (Part V) residential scheme comprising of: • 2no. two bedroom detached bungalows; • 4no. two bedroom semi-detached bungalows; • 6no. two bedroom semi-detached two storey dwellings; • 11no. three bedroom semi-detached two storey dwellings; and • 5no. four bedroom semi-detached two storey dwellings 3.2 Permission is also sought for new boundary treatments, hard and soft landscaping including areas of public open space, public lighting, surface water drainage and on -site attenuation, connection to existing public utility services and associated site development works (see Figure 2 overleaf). 4 3.3 The proposed development takes an inclusive and coherent community based design approach incorporating best practice urban planning principles. It will give new residents a sense of place, ownership and identity within a high quality living environment. The proposed design and layout discourages anti -social behaviour, particularly by ensuring that all access was and public areas are well overlooked and monitored by multiple dwellings. The proposal eliminates physical barriers to improve accessibility for all users. The layout promotes the clear separation of the public and private realms, ease of accessibility and permeability as the means of achieving a high -quality living environment. Figure 2— Proposed Site Layout. Source: Dwg. 6524-25-CSP-001 Rev. Ri © CS Pringle (2026) 3.4 Vehicular and pedestrian access will be taken off the existing Doohamlet estate road and its entrance onto the R183. 3.5 A range of contemporarily designed dwellings of various types, scales and layouts are proposed in order to avoid an uninspiring and characterless housing scheme. The proposed housing mix meets specific housing requirement identified in the County Council's Housing Strategy and in national design guidelines. Whilst each house type will vary internally and externally the use of a shared palette of materials and finishes; including a smooth white render with contrasting coloured panels, blue/black roofing slates and uPVC windows; will provide the proposal with a visual uniformity and vernacular signature. The proposed was the subject of a Housing Quality Assessment Report which demonstrates compliance with the DoHLGH's 'Housing for Sustainable Communities — Best Practice Guidelines for Delivering Homes' (2020), 'Design Manual for Quality Housing' (2022) and relevant development management standards set out in the MCDP. 5 4.1 The appeal site has been part of several previous applications for residential development which are summarised in Table 1 below. 051412 Doohamlet Housing development of 72no. units consisting of 28no. Construction semi-detached two storey dwellings, 2no. semi- detached two storey dwellings with detached garages, 8no. two storey dwellings with attached garages, 7no. detached two storey dwellings with detached garages and 27no. detached two storey dwellings houses, connection to existing treatment unit, all site services and new combined entrance with existing council houses. 061369 Doohamlet Housing development of 70no. units and creche, Construction consisting of 14no. semi-detached 3 bedroom, two storey units, 34no. semi-detached 4 bedroom, two storey units, 36no. detached garages, 10no. detached five bedroom, two storey units with detached garages, 2no. detached 4 bedroom, two storey units with attached garages, 9no. detached 4 bedroom , two storey units with detached garages and 1no. detached 4 bedroom, two storey unit, connection to public water and existing sewer treatment unit, new combined entrance with existing council houses and associated site development works. Deemed Withdrawn Approved 27.03.07 2560379 Housing development for 29no. dwellings comprising of Incomplete 1no. 2 bed detached bungalow; 4no. 2 bed semi- Application detached bungalow dwellings; 6no. 2 bed semi-detached two -storey dwellings; 2no. 3 bed detached two -storey dwellings; 11no. 3 bed semi-detached two -storey dwellings; 5no. 4 bed semi-detached two -storey dwellings; together with boundary treatments, hard & soft landscaping, public lighting, new estate road, connection to existing mains services and all ancillary and associated site works. 2560403 Doohamlet Housing development for 29no. dwellings comprising of Incomplete Construction Co. 1no. 2 bed detached bungalow; 4no. 2 bed semi- Application Ltd. detached bungalows; 6no. 2 bed semi-detached two - storey dwellings; 2no. 3 bed detached two -storey dwellings; 11no. 3 bed semi-detached two -storey dwellings and 5no. 4 bed semi-detached two -storey dwellings; together with boundary treatments, hard & soft landscaping, public lighting, new estate road, connection to existing mains services and all ancillary and associated site works. 4.2 Planning Ref. No. 25/60481 was lodged on the 2nd December 2025. Additional Information was requested on the 3`d February 2026. The Appellant provided a compressive response on the 30`h July 2026. The Council's Notification of Decision to Refuse was subsequently issued on the 26th August 2026 citing the following single reason: 'Objective SHO 4 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 seeks 'To promote and facilitate development that is commensurate with the nature and extent of the existing village and to support their role as local service centres and locations for housing.' Additionally, Policy RSDP1 and Section 15.8.10 of the Monaghan County Development, requires the submission of evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that there is demand for the proposed residential development taking account of the extent, nature and status of extant permission for residential development, and vacant residential properties in the settlement. Section 15.8.10 also notes that the Planning Authority may favourably consider proposals for social housing developments whcih area outside the defined Tier 4 settlement limits where a clear demonstrable need is proven to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, and where lands are contiguous to the settlement limit and can be adequately serviced. The site of the development is substantially located outside the settlement envelope of Doohamlet village and would not represent a coordinated and consolidated pattern of growth. Additionally the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that there is a demand for the proposed residential development, either private or social, within the Tier 4 settlement of Doohamlet in accordance with the provisions of Policy RSDP 1 and Section 15.8.10. Consequently, the development, if permitted would be contrary to the provisions of the Policy RSDP1 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area'. 5.1 Whereas the County Council cited only Policy RDSP 1 and Section 15.8.10 of the MCDP as reason for their recommendation to refuse permission, their assessment and refusal preamble brought up several matters which require a response. In support of the Appellants case for appeal we offer the following observations and arguments. 1. Objective SHO 4. 5.2 In the preamble to the County Council's recommendation to refuse permission Objective SHO 4 (see Appendix 2) is referenced. The refusal however fails to specify how the proposed development, in the County Council's opinion, contravenes Objective SHO 4 leading to speculation as to why it was ever included in the Notification of Decision to Refuse. 5.3 Section 2.6.4 of the MCDP recognises the County Settlement Hierarchy's acknowledgement of the importance Tier 4 settlements play in sustaining the vitality of rural communities. It states each village has the necessary infrastructural capacity available to ensure they can continue their function as local growth settlements and serve the needs of their hinterlands; providing social and commercial services to their respective hinterlands including housing. 5.4 Consideration of the proposed development against Objective SHO4 or Section 2.6.4 was not of sufficient importance to the County Council to be included in their request for Additional Information. However Objective SHO 4 was subsequently brought up when assessing the Appellant's Additional Information response. Page 18 of the County Planner's Assessment Report acknowledges Variation No. 2 to the MCDP' but stated it would be given limited weight in consideration of the proposed development. This, in the Appellant's opinion, was not the case as Variation No. 2 was then used to undermine the principle of the proposed development. An Coimisiun Pleanala will be cognisant that as a consequence of the 2025 Guidelines changes to all County Plans' housing strategies, 1 Variation No. 2 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 was carried out and adopted on the 2"d March 2026 in response to the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage's 'NPF Implementation: Housing Growth Requirements — Guidelines for Planning Authorities' (2025) 7 corresponding zoning objectives and planning policies projected new housing provision requirements in each local planning authority increased. 5.5 The Planner's Report notes Variation No. 2 increased the Monaghan's Tier 4 settlement housing allocation from 205no. to 471no. units over the lifespan of the County Plan. It also calculated a '... notional average ...' of 34no. new dwellings for each of the County's 14no. Tier 4 settlements. The County Council however is in error to apply an even distribution of additional housing units across all 14no. Tier 4 settlements as it materially ignores critical physical, infrastructural, land availability and locational disparities between settlements that mean some are more suited to accommodating such expected increases in their existing housing stocks. There is nothing in the 2025 Guidelines or in Variation No. 2 to support such an interpretation. Furthermore the same logic should have also resulted in the refusal of the '... separate current application for residential development ...' referenced in Item 1 of Additional Information and on page 18 of the County Planner's Assessment Report. Planning Ref. No. 25/60489; from Connolly Partnership; is a private residential scheme of 44no. dwellings located behind Connolly's Bar/Lounge & Accommodation to the north of the appeal site. Planning Ref. No. 25/60489 exceeds Variation No. 2's increased housing allocation by 10no. units or 29.41% over maximum. 5.6 It is submitted that the alterations resulting from Variation No. 2 of the MCDP should have been applied equally to the assessment of both planning applications but was not. Moreover the Appellant is particularly aggrieved at the implied preference and bias expressed in the County Planner's Assessment Report towards the Connolly Partnership planning application. Not only does the Planner's Report inaccurately state Planning Ref. No. 25/60489 could '... potentially deliver most if not all of the residential needs of Doohamlet over the Plan period' — see paragraph 5.5 above it also materially ignores the acceptability in principle of the Appellant's proposal as afforded under Section 15.8.10's assessment criteria and caveat (see Table 2 overleaf). 5.7 The County Planner's Report cites concerns that in granting two current applications Doohamlet may end up with 72no. new residential units that could increase the local population by '... almost 200 additional persons ...'2. Such an opinion ignores the fact that both proposals are for very different forms of residential development — one private, the other social and affordable. The Council was also too dismissive in disregarding the very valid point raised in the Appellant's Additional Information response that there is no guarantee that should the Connolly Partnership application be approved it will be built or built promptly. The Council's position also seems to ignore the limited contribution the Connolly Partnership proposal will make to Doohamlet's current social housing list requirements in contrast to the Appellant's proposal3. The Count Council's opinion in this matter incorrectly assumes the two proposals will compete with each other. Whereas there is a degree of overlap in that both proposals will deliver varied numbers of social and affordable housing each application is aimed as a very different market / demographic. 5.8 The Appellant's Additional Information response was correct in suggesting that the existence of another live planning application within the settlement boundary neither diminishes the demonstrated need for additional social and affordable housing within Doohamlet nor prejudices the concurrent assessment of the Appellant's proposal under Section 15.8.10 of the MCDP. Each planning application must be determined independently on its own merits, having regard to relevant planning policies and objectives, submitted information and evidence submitted and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Accordingly, the existence of another live planning application provides no valid basis for refusing this development proposal. It is therefore 2 Calculated using 2022 C5O average household occupancy rate of 2.74no. persons per household. 3 Planning Ref. No. 25/60489 will provide only 9no. social and affordable housing units in comparison to Planning Ref. No. 25/60481's 28no. units. submitted the County Council acted improperly and inappropriately in expressing a pre- determination preference towards a 'rival' residential development proposal. 5.9 It is also submitted that relying on only one source to provide an entire settlement's future housing growth is a fundamentally flawed, short-sighted and unreliable approach which has been repeatedly demonstrated over the over the years in unimplemented planning permissions and/or ghost estates. It also seems contrary to the principal objective of the NPF Implementation Guidelines (2025) and the Minister's ambition of facilitating the delivery of more new houses to meet the current housing crisis. 5.10 The proposed development will deliver housing to a very specific demographic that contrary to the County Council's suggestion, does not conflict with the Connolly Partnership proposal. In providing social and affordable housing to a pre-existing and growing list of specific local residents, Planning Ref. No. 25/60481 will allow locals to remain in the village and community they grew up in rather than dispersing to other settlements. It will ensure the continued viability and vitality of the village and the surrounding rural hinterland in compliance with Section 2.6.4 and Objective SHO 4 of the MCDP. 2. Invalid Reason for Refusal. 5.11 The County Council's Planning Assessment Report and subsequent Notification of Decision to Refuse repeatedly refer to Policy RSDP 1 and Section 15.8.10 of the MCDP. Policy RSDP 1 (see Appendix 2) is the MCDP's Rural Housing Siting and Design Policy. It is linked to Section 15.9.2 and Table 15.3 of the County Plan which provides guidelines for siting and designing a rural house in the vernacular style. 5.12 Policy RSDP 1 has no connection with Section 15.8.10 of the MCDP. It is submitted that given the particular setting, location and circumstances of the appeal site and development proposal Policy RSDP 1 has no material bearing on Planning Ref. No. 25/60481. Whilst the appeal site sits adjacent to but outside Doohamlet's settlement envelope, Policy RSDP 1 is geared towards proposals for individual rural houses not a multi -unit scheme on land which is contiguous to an established rural settlement. As such it is submitted Policy RSDP 1 is an irrelevant and improper basis upon which to refuse planning permission. Most crucially the County Planner's assessment report fails to indicate how, in their opinion, the proposed development is in breach of the design and siting standards set out in Table 15.3 and required under Policy RSDP 1, 5.13 An Coimisiun Pleanala will be cognisant of Section 7.14 of the DoEHLG's 'Development Management — Guidelines for Planning Authorities' (2007) which states that '... care and attention is devoted to the drafting of refusal decisions as is given to grants of permission'. Section 7.14 also advises reasons for refusal should '... be related specifically to the particular development proposal'. Policy RSDP 1 has no connection to the type and scale of development proposed in planning Ref. No. 25/60481. 5.14 Section 7.15 of the Guidelines also states a reason for refusal must, as far as possible, bring out the reasonableness of applying the provisions of the plan in the particular case. It also states where such a reason is given it must be clearly shown that specific policies/objectives of the Plan would be breached in a significant way. In this case the County Planer's assessment report fails to indicate how the proposed development contravenes the siting and design guidelines for a rural house. 5.15 It is therefore submitted that the use and reliance upon Policy RSDP 1 in justifying the refusal of Planning Ref. No. 25/60481 is contrary to Section 7.14 of the Development Management Guidelines. Furthermore it is submitted that in failing to adequately demonstrate how that proposed development is in breach of Policy RSDP 1; as opposed to other policies of the MCDP; the Council's decision is in breach of Section 7.15 of the Guidelines. E 5.16 Both material deviations from the Guidelines' advice are, in the Appellant's opinion, sufficient and reasonable grounds to overturn the County Council's recommendation. 3. Section 15.8.10 of the MCDP 5.17 Section 15.8.10 of the MCDP states that residential development located on suitably serviced sites within any Tier 4 settlement should have sufficient capacity within existing public foul drainage and public/group water systems and will be considered subject to a number of criteria. 5.18 Table 2 overleaf demonstrates how the proposed development complies with these standards. 10 U' 0 O 0 •I� U I-. I I IN N In CO lD N 0 0 A 0 -o r i N - N J j 7 n-1. 7 N 0 j (0 rD -+ c `'' ' , -. I o rt (D ry 0 D roc 1, a cn 0 N lD n C v > 0 7 'a -a v "O • o. --I .p (D 7" co C m (0 rt 'a • . tn- 0) 'O O 0 -0 (D n. Di O C 'y 'a -a -0 m 7 C m 0- 0 0_ tn' n n O Um D -O w 7 v, _• m o O m o c iv 0L S S tv 5' (D m 3 m 7 rt N n rt _Q m m in' Q N rt In rt < -o co D ('1• rr j = �, fL tn' J N 3 7" f:' C r7P 7' m p_j n Di CiQ Q v'. O 0 0_ �. ,y. OD r+ m r+ r+ m m fD (0 to U' Q (.. p7j O r+ -1 0 7, O 7 -0 3 O° 3 N o— n 0 _- CD _ rr C 'O I .CD _D coil _ v d O, W m (Sp 0 '+ r7r Q �, 0q f3D '+ OD N roc. N 7 N O 3 �• N r+ '< fnDi n (tr: 7 -< (D m j to rD 0. . r+ rC+ 0 n 0 O ' comic Di 7 (A (D < O� O v p 7 m fi n to 7 a OU C �' 1 ', nni Q. m 7 �. m ni p A N 0 0 c 00 FA• j v °O_ 0 ronr O C m (�D r+ 0 O 7 j x N 3 7 7 �, r7•r 0 O 7 O r r7+ m :. -a S 0 Q Q 7 rD v fs = O - LU 0 N rt. A r•F (D In m (�/7 O I D 0 3-_ =r O fy m 0 3 (D C ? r r --- UJ r+ Cr 00 0 3 (CD 0 7 '� Oq• fL x 0 a Z o d m 70 O CL "O R' O rte_+• N' 7' S OQ 7 — = m '< {,. Di D r+ m m 7 N O-1, m< ° v rD X j m D O p 0 3 -CD m -r 7 nai (Do (Do a " p 9 X • O o- �' 7 �a c I r, _ N Di 7 7 "O m ,rt m m S C r f Q p 7 -92 -<2. (D Q 0 i < 7 (L v to to Q 3 1 (D Q to vi m 7 O D cmii cn (D x O7q rn+ (D rN+ n r+• Q Oq' ni p D CD ° a m < aca v : C (moo v (<D r+ D u' c Di 0 O ° 7 7 • rn+ 7 n ° (� °' ° r Di m p < No Di 0.0 o° o 7-m r r O d n p rx+ .QN1 to W C N 7 D U N m rtm 3 <• Dj a" N \ O Q d' 00 , 0 n m '0 cn (D v, m G' . N. m• X, C 'O v 0' S CD r+ (D o O m 0 - fv n 7' Q C Q O 7 3 7 m (D00 O 7 7 t1 O " to 3 — 0G' rte+ O CD O (0 ° 7 I C - m m , O m O CD nc- 0 O O. ° 3 CD ° fv m 0 3=• ni 0 C -. 0 3( N 7- m nn, CD r* m m (n v, m v, -,, a' m v, G oq v, o m_ I LA b4 C 0 Co U 0 +' C a) I- I - 0 N U C 0 U a) b0 C Co 0 E E U U co 0 a) Co a Co u Co a) C a) a) 0 C a) O a) L a) c m a) 0 Q 0 LZ ❑. Co a) 0 E O c Co a) a) a) 4- N C 0 0 a) to to C C C Co a) ba v -O c > a) C bD N 0 0 0 4. b0 Q a) a) '� 4-' C -O a) N L V) N � N L it E Co t N = a) 4-- a • •E < a) a) O H E C t E O O 'n 0 C N o `a N Co 0 a) a) C 0C CO Q 4-' o E a) E C v &) o0 C0O c oc to o . C 4- U to C = j N ' O o t to•N a) L C c to C a1 0 O U m 0 c0 0 b0 •L b0 CO a) v 0 -O -'3 'L= C W L U CO C a1 _ i` o a) .0 OL c 0 a) O N }+0 / a) Co _C 0 +' Q- t • C c E +� E a) O v - E ° +' 0 i a) C E O a) -°° E a c C 0. >- 0 a) 0 a) C v > vto+'v a 0 b0 C -0 N C -0 r -I C -0 a Co co 4- >- N 4- COO) — 3 CC O co O C -- N 'C Co a) m U COLCo F- ,_ O C -O 3 M CO N iZ vi 'O o. Q-0 a 00 s C ° LLo -p 0 C > 'N O C a) w 00 C (0 L L O C b0 b0 >• a) O C C a) E (o Ln _ CO N ° 7- C CO 7 -0 (0 -O O a) "O Q O ' L > O L c by a'' N N> 0 a0 V C m O N +j C U C v 0— C O C >O U Q) O C = *= C r0 — 0 C o ' a) CC o 0 0 O Co >`o a) +� ° C v L ° a, O m N x U) Xo +O' oE 0� C -O:4-'_ O 0 p +ai N 4- -0 a) N ca L C N N ri O 0C 0 Ca) >, a a; o "o •o a c5aci Ec> 3. E a- OU L a) a) N O 1 N -O U C a) C N a0 C O a) °'i CO t10 C O.. ,r, .� (0 L a) a •C (0 t N N O v a) = b0 a oE c Cov v 4° o a, o° U a c tcv oo u DO. 7 ro a) C - (p c +C' o a) N- N L a) D u O O a) V) C H @ N 0 0 u DCoC4O O U 3 +, +' m > 0 a +� L O C = N N 0 f0 C N <0-i a) N N 0 'O O O' C) C O u N O cv C O a 3 -O a) = u m LO N Q_ co a) 0)0. •— s-0 `°to -O C Co a " u OL Q -O i ,? o= N Ca) v ° co Q) a) °- to c E u 0 '> u aJ 4-' -O a) m a) C Z +' IZ 0.4- 0 E C c ,E to s c v N O• ° o O 4-U 4 N U v-� c 0— a)+' C�0 t'� > D--03 m a) COa) H ba ° a a) i a1 L a u -o C Co m a)•4_ a LO ° 0 o E .n u ai o C C c �' _j ,4- o —o>- u 0 E= 4-' +' 0 a.O N a) L b0rc0 O 3 c -c "— ° C d C 4 N N +' ns •L- °-C o "+.,=+' 'cLn 0) o E c aa) a s a) v >- m c +—' a) o° 0 N Ln -OO O Z C r -I Y a) p E bA -O N a) N Q - ++ E H a) C N DD O '+' C coo `^ O to O "O OC C 0_ N a v N OE +�.' 'aO N C O 4-' Q •+•+ N > C UO (0 0(0 f0 aa) a)N) •- 0 a) a) 4- a) 1' aN) N QO. L2 a) tD b0 5U L +' > O +� E O bA N L t • —>a) C O C -0 Co x L- a) ° oO L C 4) L N c �. v t Q Qx ° E a) a>i t U °) E O +' N too ° a, O av+ C L O -S }, c0 f0 0 C a)U d C 0° E Oc N o O o t0 U •_ m N U a> C a i- O C a) a) a) C0 t U o O o C a) SO C N -O C U t0 < +.+ n f0 4 +' U -0 4- C o a) °- ry U a C O c N a) 0 CL N t9 N a) C C aN_ +a' C aJ 0.'—-- OO O N U c@ 3 o 0 0 0 `1 f0 co 7 O 4 00 a) C y 0 C 0 a) 0 'O O U t0.CC U a) U a a) U Ca) ba u o' a) a) a) 0 LZ -O o a'' C a) L co a) +' C Mu C o +' + > N 0 4_ Co Co U -- H 'O Q L C 0 Q! C � 41 4 O N v v o c e m oE o•Z aw' O k O U •'�' a) c v v O O a� Q v Q N aJ V O ac, o ^O U 0 C CO C a) E O. 0 a) a) 0 b0 C N X a) 4— C a) Co Q b0 C En X a) N 0) E CO 0 0 0 C a) U) N C 0 U a) 7 0 C a) E 0 a) > a) a) 0 02 0 Q a) H CDCD ° oo c CD '� < hro m N o ° rD rD o- r) a a rD Z3 5 U5 = Q° A rU a a v S CDrDr o x° rt rn a a; ca C (0o -a 'a -o a �,z� m ° DCD °° o o 0 0 r3D CD 0 00 0) n rr+ * C •• -1'O -i (n rD Q v r7 -I +„ 'O rt = 0) Q -1 N O CD2rt �' N O O 0)(D '* O m f°. n Q 0o' �' ° rD o n o 0) -i, rt n Q r rt O, ON < n d O=° r_3r +„ O W N n d t„ o rr (D 'O rD V) - C rD O +„ r) O +„ C 7 N O rD -0 O < < r + EA rt rr y C °° .- 0 o -s U)O-•0) (rtD j• a rD m rD aN °O Q m N m CDC —-p ° r+ g r N C D r+ 3 ° mr+ m o C Q Qo a. (D 3 ° v rD (D �• r* p� ON Q 3 S vCi rt O 0 rD D O -O r00+ r3+ WO "D — t„ r+ O C- '< to O 0 0 3 3 5 0'v 3O * 0o U) -O 3 ' O oi0 W 7 N N rD rt (�D _. j n r+ (D (D O H f) rD rD cn O= n O n ((D C- CD d (D 3 v 01 < p 0° O r+ d 7 O n C 7 C (D N N 7 v> 00q 0S d O C N rp (D C 7 0) r3D r+ ≤ -°O rt (D N 3 (° A v n U1CD C rrtr C r3+ 7 n 7 0 = (D O O v+ 0 'h 0) c O O n (D � �+ r+ (D rD r* QI O pj to c 0-< 0) O 3 O\i Q n°"I c f 1 rn+ Sll X Oil < N rCr a' t„ a 0 rr Q m n O fl Q rD 0 -t, O * N• 00 <CD 7 rD O '< C 7 r�-r r_r• fD fD O 3 v 00 < rr '01 < -0 (D r0+` °c roCD rD v rn+ o m N Q' n" a Q 3 o 0 -CDC 3 7 �' C -I . o a- 'O (D Q O (D N fD N 7 O rD (D r+ -s �. C to 3 O O' O r+ rD (D r r Ort CD 0q 00 C n ri rOi 0 C ≤. CD o, m n m -o 3 _ v N o 0) — O Q ON rD 0 (�D C (D O 0 (n Uq d rD < fD O O N O y O CD_p0 3 rD ° 0a g p n< N 0 < o D v c* o -D -' e 0) O O N n rt rU 7 rt (D CD -(D fD C v °' N 7 ° cn O O -�M1 -p =� O N fD f�D N (D Q O I O O C f7 0q o 3° m= rt 0 O C r+ <(D roo° 9 °c < < r+ C 3 �' 04 7 N - O" r+ C N•(D 3 < 3 + < 9CDd Q r+ CD rD O 3 (D 0)Q0 Q fD fD U v 0)CD CDC Q rD Ort (D (i, CD °'_,. 0 3 rD c rD n� 0o v v" o Q< < T N N' 61 7 rt i d N O v7i d ,C vrD Q D 'O O rD 0) O > O ° 3 2' > rt (D ° N cu 3o �' 3 ° O O0 N rD n d U) Q cn p� 3 0 N 0 U < N 3 C r+ Ln < y, (D 'S O = N rD -+, -t r+ rD O N 7 fD Q '* O O rnr o O 3 3rD 0a n r* ar ro ° rD N Q c 3 o r* a4 +, (D (D rn+ v N rD 'Q0.0) 3 0) 0) 0 0) �: N r+ (D 7 * rnwr rrD nrti 0 0 0 CL dC D a CD X C CD (DD o v C 3 a CD v° rt rD m rQD m r^ O o 3 (n° v, r+ v 3 LA rr 0 r3O-= OZ O- D rr Q -0 R' < rD 7 O -+, -s rD = rr -p<CD(D Q r+ (a O 7 Q O 5.19 The County Planner's Assessment Report does not consider the proposed development against any of Section 15.8.10's criteria yet cites it in the refusal of permission. It is submitted such a failure calls into question the thoroughness of the overall assessment and, subsequently, the reliability of the decision to refuse. In demonstrating compliance with Section 15.8.10 of the MCDP the proposed development is compliant with Policy RDSP 1 (see Appendix 2) which is the policy tied to Section 15.8.10. 6.1 A clear and demonstrable need for additional social and affordable housing serving Doohamlet has been established. The proposed development will make a substantial contribution towards redressing the ongoing deficiency in available social housing units to serve the populations of Doohamlet and its surrounding hinterland. The proposed development is, in principle, aligned with the 'NPF Implementation: Housing Growth Requirements — Guidelines for Planning Authorities' (2025) and Variation No. 2 of the MCDP by delivering more housing which both documents seek to encourage and facilitate. 6.2 It has been demonstrated how the appeal site is easily serviced, with written confirmations received from relevant infrastructural providers. The proposal development is of a commensurate scale and density of development with other estates within the village and will make a valuable and positive contribution to Doohamlet's general vernacular and its visual and physical character. The appeal site lies contiguous to the village's settlement envelope and its development as proposed represents a logical, inevitable and sequential extension to its existing urban form. 6.3 In demonstrating compliance with these assessment criteria the caveat set out in Section 15.8.10 of the MCDP applies. Consequently the MCDP allowing for the favourable consideration of a social and affordable housing scheme outside a Tier 4 settlement envelope. Under such caveated exceptions the proposed development of a modest social and affordable housing scheme is consistent with the provisions of Sections 2.6.4 and 15.8.10, Objective SHO 4 and Policy RDSP 1 as well as the principles of proper and sustainable development. 6.4 For the reasons set out throughout this statement the Appellant respectfully requests An Coimsiun Pleanala overturn the County Council's recommendation to refuse permission and issue a direction of conditional approval. Sincerely for EH ervices Appendix 1 15 Rannog Pleanail Planning Section — 00353 47 30532 4.L axn ac .Len,.... planning@monaghancoco.ie M n.gNn [e.n„Leen,INln MONAGHAN COUNTY COUNCIL 26/08/2026 Ref No: 25/60481 TO: Doohamlet Construction Co. Ltd Kieran O'Reilly Monaghan Road Castleblayney Co. Monaghan A75 EP84 Re Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) NOTIFICATION OF DECISION TO REFUSE Monaghan County Council has by order dated 26/08/2026 decided to REFUSE permission to the above named for the development of land, in accordance with the documents submitted namely for: - Permission for development consisting of the following: The provision of 28 no, dwellings comprising: 2 No. 2 bed detached bungalow dwellings, 4 no. 2 bed semi-detached bungalow dwellings, 6 No. 2 bed semi-detached two -storey dwellings, 11 No. 3 bed semi-detached two -storey dwellings, 5 no. 4 bed semi-detached two -storey dwellings, Together with revised site layout plans, boundary treatments, hard and soft landscaping, public lighting, drainage and utility services, revised house type drawings and all other ancillary site development works necessary to facilitate the proposed development. at Dernaglug Doohamlet Co.Monaghan for the 1 reason(s) set out on the Schedule attached. Signed on behalf of Monaghan County Council, 26/08/2026 Date 0 Oifigi Pleanala Comhairle Contae Mhuineachain 1 Sraid Bhaile Atha Cliath, Mumeachan, f H18 X982, Cire. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER "0 00353 47 30500 info@monaghancoco.ie eolas@monaghancoco.ie www.monaghan.ie 0 Planning Offices Monaghan County Council 1 Dublin Street, Monaghan, H18 X982, Ireland. Failtlonn an tUdaras Aitiuil roimh chomhfhreagras i nGaeilge 16 If you are aggrieved by this decision you may appeal it within four weeks from the day of the decision, by forwarding your grounds of appeal to The Secretary, An Coimisiun Pleanala, 64 Marlborough Street, Dublin 1, DO1 V902. This Is a strict time limit. The appeal must in be writing (either typed or handwritten). You must clearly state your own name and address. If someone is acting for you, like a planning agent they must clearly state their own name and address as well as your name and address. You must give enough details to allow An Coimisiun Pleanala to identify the application you wish to appeal. You must provide your planning grounds of appeal (reasons and arguments) for your appeal and any items you wish to support your grounds of appeal. If you are a third party, you must Include the written acknowledgement given to you by the planning authority to confirm it received your submission at planning application stage. The appeal must be fully complete, with your name and address, the subject matter of the appeal, the full grounds of appeal and supporting arguments and material, appropriate fee and evidence of payment of submission fee to the Planning Authority. You must pay the correct fee to An Coimisiun Pleanala. For more information on how to make an appeal see www.pleanala.ie 0 Oifigi Pleanala Comhairle Contae Mhuineachain 1 Sraid Bhaile Atha Cliath, Muineachan, H18 X982, Eire. O® 0 003534730500 Planning Offices info@monaghancoco.ie Monaghan County Council eolas@monaghancoco.ie 1 Dublin Street, www.monaghan,ie Monaghan, H18 X982, Ireland. Failtionn an tUdaras Aitiuil roimh chonihfhreagras i nGaeilge 17 25/60481 Doohamlet Construction Co. Ltd Dernaglug, Doohamlet, Co.Monaghan Objective SHO 4 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 seeks 'To promote and facilitate development that is commensurate with the nature and extent of the existing villages and to support their role as local service centres and locations for housing.' Additionally, Policy RSDP1 and Section 15.8.10 of the Monaghan County Development Plan, requires the submission of evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that there is demand for the proposed residential development taking account of the extent, nature and status of extant permissions for residential development, and vacant residential properties in the settlement. Section 15.8.10 also notes that the Planning Authority may favourably consider proposals for social housing developments which are outside the defined Tier 4 settlement limits where a clear demonstrable need is proven to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority, and where lands are contiguous to the settlement limit and can be adequately serviced. The site of the proposed development is substantially located outside the settlement envelope of Doohamlet village and would not represent a coordinated and consolidated pattern of growth. Additionally, the applicant has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Planning Authority that there is a demand for the proposed residential development, either private or social, within the Tier 4 settlement of Doohamlet in accordance with the provisions of Policy RSDP1 and Section 15.8.10. Consequently, the development, if permitted would be contrary to the provisions of the Policy RSDP1 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 and to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. 0 O ® 0 Oifigi Pleanala 003534730500 Comhairle Contae Mhuineachain 1 Sraid Bhaile Atha Cliath, Muineach5n, H18 X982, Lire. info@monaghancoco.ie eolas@monaghancoco.ie www.monaghan.ie Planning Offices Monaghan County Council 1 Dublin Street, Monaghan, H18 X982, Ireland. Failtionn an tUdaras Aitiuil roimh chomhfhreagras i nGaeilge 18 Appendix 2 19 Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031 Planning Policies & Objectives HDP 1 To require a density of units within multi -unit residential schemes, in accordance with the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements Guidelines for Planning Authorities, 2024 and any new or updated/subsequent versions. MURP 1 Proposals for multi -unit residential development shall comply with Section 15.8 to 15.8.6 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. RDSP 1 Proposals for residential developments within Tier 4 settlements shall comply with Section 15.8.10 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. RSDP 1 Proposals for rural housing shall generally comply with Section 15.9.2 and Table 15.3 of the Monaghan County Development Plan 2025-2031. SHO 4 To promote and facilitate development that is commensurate with the nature and extent of the existing villages and to support their role as local service centres and locations for housing. 20 Appendix 3 21 From: Lorcdn MacCinna Sent: 11 September 2025 17:27 To: Kieran O Reilly C1� Cc: Ronan Subjech Doohamlet Housing Need 1- O. A chars Kieran, I hereby confirm that there are currently 31 housing applicants on the social housing list for Doohamlet. The Image below shows the Grand Total t jar of social housing applications (personal details have been removed as they cannot be shared under GDPR). 2O In Monaghan County Council's opinion the housing need exceeds the number that are currently on the social housing list as there are applicants from the I 'who have expressed a preference for housing in other nearby towns or villages as it is perceived that there might be a better chance of being allocated a social house in other locations. In Monaghan County Council's experience the social housing list for this location will increase significantly when applicants become aware that houses will be developed in this location. In addition there is an unmet demand for private housing in this area. This smell, can be used to show that there Is a need for the proposed housing development. Group Scheme - On waiting list (Approved ONLY) Applications for Oh Run Dale 11/09/2025 Report Owner Lorcan MacCinna Description List of Group scheme application for Dochamlet on the waiting list. These applications are on ALLOCATE PROPERTY stage and have been APPROVED Grand Total: 31 Le dea•mhbin, Lorcan MacCinna Senior Executive Engineer Housing Section Monaghan County Council Reception 047 30500 i.ntonaenan.i Comhairle Contae Mhuineachain Monaghan County Council Subject tocontract/contract denied, subject to funding and without prejudice. This correspondence �a Issued without prejudice; it does not purport to create binding legal relations and no legitimate expectation sholl arise therefrom. P/ease note that 1 have no authority expressed or implied to bind Monaghan County Council to any agreement and this email is not robe construed as a note or memorandum for the purposes of section Sin/the Land and Conveyancing tow Reform Act, 2009. r�rnc drinre, commuMraricm Ihnr en u,bi,nc: ro dcuAiwv eh,u1dnlw be awn by po.N. L C S Tel:042-9746492 Fax: 042-9746511 "i all nt Email: info@cspringle.com il) Pg1e Website: www.cspringle.com • CONSULTING ENGINEERS • BUILDING SURVEYORS • ARCHITECTS Date: 02 December 2025 Our Ref.: 6524/RM Planning Department, Monaghan County Council, 1 Dublin Street, Monaghan Re: Part V for Housing Development at Dernaglug, Doohamlet, Co. Monaghan. Dear Sir 1 Madam, All proposed houses are intended to be provided as social housing, with demand confirmed in a supporting letter from the Housing Section included in this planning submission. Under current Part V legislation, local authorities are entitled to acquire up to 20% of this land at Existing Use Value (EUV), which can then be used to deliver homes for households eligible for social and affordable housing support. Accordingly, we propose 6 will be sold to the local authority, 24.3% of the total plots, for use as social housing at an estimated Net Monetary Value (NMV) of €1,640,000. For the area and cost calculations breakdown please see table on the next page. Locations of the 6 proposed Part V houses shown above In Red. Registered Office Main Street, Castlehlaynay, I Co. Monaghan. Page 1 of 2 incorporated in Ireland: Reg No 640491 j 61NK Engineering trading as CS Pringle ACE!PSS0CIATION OF OFF RELANDG FNGINEER5 PIDIC D I C. g l (cJ �\ V, IS a5) 23 29 houses with unequal plot sizes Total plot size for 29 houses 7830.3 m2 Plot size of 7 Part V houses 1904.6 mz Plot size of 7 Part V houses as % of total plots: 24.3% Estimated Existing Use Value (EUV) of Part V houses: 1 x Detached Bungalow, OAP, 2 Bed - 3 People € per house 4 x Semi-detached Bungalow, OAP, 2 Bed - 3 People € per house 1 x Semi-detached Two Storey, 2 Bed -4 People € per house Estimated Net Monetary Value (NMV) of Part V houses: € Note: The total no. of units transferred and the cost to Monaghan County Council may differ in the final agreement. We trust that this explanation satisfies the requirements of Part V. Yours sincerely, Ronan Merrick Architectural Technician For and on behalf of CS Pringle Page 2 of 2 24