Restoration deadline extension at Lands approximately 165 metres west of no. 45 Camcosy Road, Curraghinalt, Gortin, Co

“The application seeks permission to vary Condition 41 of planning permission K/2014/0246/F to allow for an extension to the time period for the completion of decommissioning/restoration works at the site until the end of October 2025. The Applicant notes that the planning application for the gold mine (LA10/2017/1249/F) is currently progressing through the public inquiry and if approved, would retain the infrastructure in association with future mining activity.”

“Proposed development This application seeks permission to vary condition 41 of K/2014/0246/F (Article 28 application for non-compliance with conditions 25 and 26 of application No K/2013/0072/F (Extension to existing underground exploration tunnel; including temporary buildings, vehicle parking, waste rock storage area, water treatment system and passing bays)) to complete the restoration of the site in accordance with Drawing No 14 (K/2013/0072/F) and in accordance with…”

“Site Details The site is located at Camcosy Road and is a rectangular shaped plot. There is a green metal palisade fence around the site boundary with a gated access at the road. Onsite there are a number of buildings including security hut, sheds, office/welfare containers, water treatment plant, yard area/hardstanding, berms etc.”

“However, for the reasons listed within the Report, the retention of the development on site for the further period specified is not considered to be sustainable development as it does not fall within any of the range of types of development in the countryside that are supported by the Plan Strategy and there are no other material considerations which justify a decision being taken contrary to the Plan Strategy.”

“The proposal does not have the capacity to absorb the building on an ongoing basis without adverse impact on visual amenity and its ongoing retention results in an obtrusive feature in the landscape. The retention of the development will also result in a suburban style build-up of development when considered with existing buildings which does not respect the traditional pattern of settlement exhibited in the area. It also creates a ribbon of development.”

“The Council has consulted Shared Environmental Services (SES) seeking advice on the potential impact of the development upon nearby designated sites. SES has not responded with comments. The Council has endeavoured to obtain a response from SES but a response has not been forthcoming.”

“FODC Environmental Health Service has advised that it has ‘considered the application and are content with no conditions’.”

“Given the divergence in opinion, the Chair stated that he was putting the proposal by Councillor Devine Gallagher, seconded by Councillor O’Reilly that the Committee should adopt the recommendation to refuse planning permission to a vote and voting took place as follows:”

“With six votes cast in favour and six votes cast against, the Chair used his casting vote to vote in favour of the proposal which was therefore carried.”

“RESOLVED: On the proposal of Councillor Devine Gallagher, seconded by Councillor O’Reilly, and by the majority of votes cast, that the above application be refused planning permission for the seven reasons listed at Paragraph 8.0 of Appendix 1. (”