Planning Permission Refused for New Supermarket in Monksland, Roscommon
Roscommon County Council has rejected the planning permission for a new supermarket in Monksland. The proposed development, which included the construction of a single-storey supermarket and an ancillary off-licence sales area, was planned for a greenfield site near the Joe Duffy car showroom.
The development plans also involved revising the existing vehicle and pedestrian entrances, providing surface level car parking spaces with electric vehicle charging points, and prewiring other spaces to accommodate future EV parking. Additionally, the project included cycle stands, a trolley bay, landscaping, an ESB substation building, site lighting, an external mechanical plant area, a bin compound area, roof-mounted photovoltaic panels, advertising signage including a “flagpole sign,” retaining walls, and associated site works.
Roscommon County Council based their refusal on three conditions. Firstly, they stated that the proposed development failed to provide an integrated mixed-use approach to the development of the ‘district centre’ zoned lands. The council argued that the generic design and layout arrangement of the standalone supermarket did not meet the primary land use zoning objectives outlined in the Monksland/Bellanamullia Local Area Plan. The council also emphasised that the development would not contribute to establishing a sense of place or provide a high-quality public realm for the district centre environment.
The second condition highlighted that if the development were permitted in isolation, it would result in a single retail operator development that is car-dependent and lacks connectivity with other surrounding ‘district centre’ zoned lands. This goes against the principles of the Roscommon County Council’s smarter travel initiative, which emphasizes the prioritization of pedestrian mobility and alternative modes of transport over cars.
Lastly, the council pointed out that the proposed generic design lacked architectural merit and failed to consider the specific site context. They argued that the design did not mitigate the massing of the units and would have an adverse visual impact, ultimately failing to achieve a high-quality presentation to the public realm.
At present, it is unclear whether the decision will be appealed.
