2560811

Retention and Permission for the following: a) Retention permission for a machinery shed. b) Planning permission for the demolition of existing silage pits. c) Planning permission for the construction of a cubicle shed with underground slatted storage tanks in place of the old silage pits. d) Planning permission for the construction of new silage pits and an underground effluent storage tank. e) Planning permission for the extension of existing yard consisting of collecting yard and handling facilities, underground slatted soiled water storage tank and all associated site works

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The applicant failed to provide a business plan justifying the scale of the development, submitted inadequate surface water management (SuDS) details, and failed to demonstrate compliant sightline visibility at the site entrance.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The applicant failed to submit a required business plan, land registry certificates, and folio maps to demonstrate that the 1,129sqm scale of the development is commensurate with the needs of the farm holding as per Chapter 13 requirements.
  • The application lacked a comprehensive Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) report and soil permeability testing, failing to demonstrate adequate management of surface water runoff and the prevention of cross-contamination between clean and soiled water.
  • The existing site entrance does not comply with the Louth County Development Plan standards for sightline visibility (75m at a 4.5m setback) due to obstructions from existing buildings, and no adequate improvement measures were proposed.

Cited Policies (CDP)

EE 56EE 60EE 61EE 62NBG 3NBG 6NBG 15IU 19IU 20Section 13.13.11.7Table 13.13

Decision Document Summary

Arkania LTD sought retention and permission for a significant agricultural development at an established farm complex in Grange, Knockbridge, Co. Louth, including a machinery shed, cubicle shed, and silage pits. Although the principle of development is supported under rural enterprise policies, the Planning Authority found the application technically deficient. The proposal was refused (or held for further information) primarily because the applicant did not justify the large scale of the develo...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.