2460437

APPEALED - ACP - Decision: Refused. permission for the construction of 51no. Dwelling Units. To consist of 24no. 2 bed 2-storey semi-detached houses, 10no. 2 bed semi-detached bungalows houses, 10no. 3 bed 2-storey semi-detached houses, 6no. 4 bed 2-storey semi-detached house and 1no. 5 bed 2-storey detached houses. Including all associated site development works and also realignment works to Drumconrath Road to accommodate a new vehicular entrance including provision of a pedestrian footpath, pedestrian crossings and traffic calming measures, Significant Further Information relates to submitted, Consultant response, Construction & Demolition Management Plan, Public Lighting calculations, Submission response, Drawing register, surface water & ground water management plan, traffic & Transport assessment report, Road safety Audit

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The development was refused due to traffic safety concerns regarding inadequate sightlines at the site entrance, a layout that failed to respect the site's steep topography, and insufficient provision of quality public open space.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The proposed vehicular access onto the Drumconrath Road is considered a traffic hazard as it fails to provide the required sightline visibility, endangering road users.
  • The site layout fails to adequately address the challenging topography of the site, resulting in a design dominated by excessive engineering works and poor residential amenity.
  • The proposal fails to provide a sufficient quantity and quality of functional public open space, contrary to the standards set out in the Monaghan County Development Plan 2019-2025.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Policy RCP 2Policy DM 1Policy DM 4Objective RCO 4Section 15.11

Decision Document Summary

Tullyagan Properties Ltd sought permission for a 51-unit residential development on a 2.04-hectare greenfield site at Drumconrath Road, Carrickmacross. Although the site is zoned 'Residential A', the application was refused by Monaghan County Council. The decision was based on the creation of a traffic hazard at the proposed entrance, a layout that did not appropriately respond to the site's steep levels, and a failure to meet the required standards for public open space provision, representing ...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.