Tipperary man refused permission to keep machinery yard after appeal
A Tipperary man has been refused permission to retain a machinery yard and build a storage shed at his property near Nenagh following an appeal to An Coimisiún Pleanála (ACP).
Paul Cahalan had applied to Tipperary County Council for permission to retain a hard-surfaced yard for vehicle parking and equipment storage at Gorteenakilla, Newtown, Nenagh.
He was also refused planning permission to construct a storage shed, carry out improvement works to the existing private access road and entrance, and the formation of access onto a private road.
Mr Cahalan appealed the refusal of planning permission to An Coimisiún Pleanála.
Tipperary County Council refused to grant Mr Cahalan permission because they said there was no justification provided for him to locate his business in the open countryside, and said that it would have a negative impact on residents in the area.
They also said that they were not satisfied that the required sightlines on the road could be achieved, and the plans, if approved, would “endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction to road users”.
The inspector with An Coimisiún Pleanála said in their report that there had been a number of enforcement letters issued to Mr Cahalan over the years, coming in March and November 2022, October 2024 and February 2026 over an unauthorised roadway, as well as the storage of machinery and the laying of a concrete base.
In his appeal, Mr Cahalan said that the site he runs his business from is the same site as his home, and that the business is a micro-enterprise that has developed from his profession as a plastering and flooring contractor.
He added that the site is used as depot for the business plant and machinery, and that there is minimal daily activity on the site other than vehicles entering and leaving the site in the mornings and evenings.
However, the inspector noted that an enforcement order required Mr Cahalan to stop using the site as a machinery yard by May 30, 2025, but said that the site remained in use more than a year later.
The inspector agreed with the council that there was no justification for why the business needed to be located in the countryside.
“It is located in a rural area on unzoned and unserviced land. It is not related to agriculture nor site dependant on being located within this rural area,” they said.
“It is an activity more suited to an urban area,” they added.
They also said that they were not satisfied that the yard met the criteria of a small business.
“It is considered that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the development...would constitute a small scale rural enterprise or that it could not be located on appropriately zoned land within towns or villages,” they said.
The inspector also agreed that the sightlines could not be achieved, and said it would constitute a danger to road safety.