2660176

3 no. single storey, detached tourist accommodation lodges each with 2 no. additional single storey, detached glamping pods along with a single storey, detached retreat building. Also, ancillary development consisting of replacement vehicular entrance, landscaping, boundary treatment, bike storage, car parking, EV charging facilities, disabled car parking, outdoor sauna and plunge pool low level lighting, bin storage area, new internal access roads and on-site waste water treatment facilities for all units. All associated site works

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The proposal fails to qualify as an integrated tourism development, effectively creating unauthorized permanent rural housing in an area exceeding density limits, while causing negative impacts on residential amenity, biodiversity, and failing technical standards for wastewater treatment.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The development is considered a form of unauthorized permanent rural housing rather than an integrated tourism facility, failing to demonstrate a social or economic need for the residents and exceeding the maximum rural residential density for the area.
  • The proposed layout and access arrangements would result in excessive hedgerow removal, damaging local biodiversity and visual amenity, while also significantly injuring the residential amenity of the adjacent dwelling through noise and overlooking.
  • Technical deficiencies regarding the site's water table and inadequate separation distances for wastewater treatment systems pose a risk to human health and fail to comply with the EPA Code of Practice.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Policy RE P24Policy RD P1Objective RD O1Table 9.1Objective RD O5Objective BI O26Chapter 3Section 3.13.3Table 3.4Policy HO P11Policy HO P26Objective HO O59Objective HO O51

Decision Document Summary

Green Haven Ltd. sought permission for a tourist accommodation development comprising three lodges, six glamping pods, and a retreat building on a greenfield site at Bishopscourt Upper, Kill, Co. Kildare. The Planning Authority refused the application primarily because the proposal functioned as a residential housing estate rather than a tourism enterprise, with two lodges intended for permanent residency without proven local need. Furthermore, the project was deemed unsuitable due to its excess...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.