2360298

Permission for development at Monksland, Athlone, Co. Roscommon, N37X330, lands to the south of the proposed development Reg. Ref. 23/60195. The development will consist of construction of 44 two and three-storey houses and apartments. The dwelling mix is as follows: 8 1-bedroom apartments, 2 2-bed semi-detached houses, 18 3-bed semi-detached and terraced houses, 16 5-bed semi-detached and terraced houses together with all associated existing and proposed site development/car parking/landscaping/boundary detail works at

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The development is premature due to its dependency on unresolved access and wastewater infrastructure from an adjacent planning application (23/60195) and fails to meet required urban design and open space standards.

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The development is premature as it relies on access arrangements and road infrastructure proposed in an adjacent application (23/60195) which has not been determined, potentially creating a traffic hazard.
  • The proposal is dependent on essential wastewater infrastructure from the same unresolved adjacent application, which could be injurious to public health in the absence of appropriate servicing.
  • The design and layout are substandard, lacking sufficient street connectivity, permeability, and usable open space, failing to comply with national urban placemaking guidelines and the County Development Plan.

Cited Policies (CDP)

CS 2.5CS 2.8Section 3.5Section 3.6Section 3.7Section 3.8Section 4.2Section 7.4Section 7.5Section 7.6Section 7.8Section 7.9Section 10.3Section 10.4Section 12.5Section 12.6Section 12.7Section 12.24Table 12.1

Decision Document Summary

KDM Contracts Ltd proposed a 44-unit residential development at Monksland, Athlone, Co. Roscommon, intended as a second phase to an adjacent scheme. The application was refused by Roscommon County Council primarily because the project is dependent on critical access and wastewater infrastructure proposed in a separate, currently unresolved application (Ref: 23/60195). Furthermore, the Planning Authority determined that the proposed design and layout were deficient, citing poor connectivity, inad...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.