Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
InvestigatesPlanning SubmissionsA SERIES OF unusual and possibly unfounded planning objections to veterinary practices in Dublin, Meath and Kildare has raised questions about who is doing them – and why.
“I came as close as I’ve ever come to having a nervous breakdown,” said David*, a vet in Dublin about planning issues he faced for his practice.
The Journal Investigates reviewed planning objections for veterinary practices over the past seven years and found a pattern of objections to new practices.
While the majority of applications received no objections and others received submissions from residents’ associations, a number of proposed practices in Leinster received submissions that followed a similar pattern.
These included objections from people living hundreds of kilometres away and repeat objections from people who share the same name, but gave different addresses each time.
Some also provided personal mailboxes rented from private companies, masking their actual address.
Anyone can provide an observation, either objecting or supporting, to a planning application and there are no disqualifiers in terms of how close a person must live to a proposed development.
However, you must include the name and address of the person making the observation and pay a €20 fee.
This is a relatively low bar to clear, allowing the planning process to be as open and accessible as possible. Once you have made a submission, a local authority will consider it when making a decision on the planning application. By making a submission, you’re also entitled to appeal a planning decision to An Bord Pleanála.
This is what happened to David. While the cost of appealing to An Bord Pleanála is substantially higher at €220 for a third-party, it also comes with a potentially greater impact due to delays at the statutory body in recent years.
David said he believes these objections are being submitted to frustrate people, but also to slow down the opening of businesses.
The Journal Investigates asked the local authorities that received these submissions whether they had received any complaints regarding the veracity of planning submissions.
No council said they were aware of any complaints.
They told us all submissions must comply with the regulations and that submissions are not given different considerations based on the location of the submitter.
They also added that they can request further information on the submissions if necessary.
The submission made against David’s practice mentioned an increase in traffic, noise and concentration of dogs in the surrounding area. The submission was also made on the last day it was possible to make a submission.
Planning was granted by the council but it was appealed to An Bord Pleanála by the same person who made the submission. Once again, the appeal application was made on the last day it was possible to submit an appeal.
The appeal was lodged in July 2022 and a final decision was not made until August 2023, when An Bord Pleanála upheld the council’s decision to grant permission.
During this time, David still had to pay for rent on the premises and by the time planning was granted, the cost of materials had gone up. “Conservatively, it cost me at least €150,000,” David said.
David said that he “basically ran out of money” during this time, and he had to borrow from friends and family until a private lender “came to the rescue”.
“I was looking at a situation where I was going to have literally nothing,” David said. If he hadn’t gotten the help from the private lender, he said he was going to have to make his seven employees redundant and possibly lose his existing business.
Just one month before the submission was made to David’s planning application, a submission was made objecting to another veterinary practice on the other side of Dublin.
This submission was made by someone with the same name, but provided a different address. It also raised similar concerns relating to traffic and the increased concentration of dogs in the area, suggesting that it would lead to frequent soiling of the footpaths.
The Journal Investigates reviewed land registry details for both addresses listed on the submissions. Both are owned by businesses, with no apparent relationship with the person named in the objections.
Planning was again granted by the council, though this time it wasn’t appealed to An Bord Pleanála.
This is not the only instance The Journal Investigates found planning objections made against veterinary practices.
Planning applications for veterinary practices in Dublin, Meath and Kildare all received submissions from someone with the same name.
The two submissions in Meath and Kildare are practically identical, with just a single line contained in the submission. They both read “I would like to object to this development proposal” without providing any further details.
Both provided the same private mailbox as their address.
The council granted planning permission to both developments. However, an appeal to An Bord Pleanála was submitted in the case of the Meath application. Similar to the other appeal, it was lodged on the very last day possible.
After over a year, An Bord Pleanála upheld the local authority’s decision, though it revised some of the conditions attached.
The appeal decision stated that the “appellant’s points…are not relevant to the appeal in hand given the information on file” and further added that other points raised were “without basis in actual fact”.
A third submission from the same name was submitted objecting to a veterinary practice in Dublin in March of this year. The submission is far more detailed than the previous two, but doesn’t provide any address.
Planning permission was granted for this development, however, at the time of writing, the window to appeal to An Bord Pleanála remains open.
This application and the one Meath also received a second objection.
The objection to the Dublin application was received from a named person who provided a self-service parcel locker location as their address. The use of these lockers, like the private mailbox, masks the full identity of those objecting to the planning application.
David argued that using these methods of masking a real address “makes a farce of the whole planning system”.
The Journal Investigates asked the planning authorities that have received submissions using these addresses whether they are valid. One local authority said, “once a full address is supplied, then the submission would be accepted.” Another added that issues with addresses are dealt with on a case-by-case basis.
In the Meath planning application, another person with a different name made a submission.
This second submission in the Meath application provided an address in a business park. This address is also shared with the admin office of Village Vets, a chain of veterinary practices located across Dublin, Meath, Cork and Wicklow.
There is no online evidence of someone with the name given on the submission being employed by or connected to Village Vets and it is possible that the address was used on the planning application by someone else.
We asked the company about this planning objection and whether the objection was lodged by Village Vets or a person linked to Village Vets but did not receive a reply before publication.
There is no suggestion that the objection is not a well-founded or proper objection, which is up to the planning authority to decide.
The Journal Investigates could not independently verify that the name on the planning submission is connected to Village Vets in any way.
In a separate case, one objection made against a planning application for a veterinary practice in Dublin was received from someone in Cork, some 220km away.
The submission differs from the others as it provides an actual residential address.
However, it consisted of just one line, stating: “I would like to make an observation on the above application, I would contend that the application for a Veterinary Clinic at this site is unsuitable and unnecessary.”
Planning was initially granted for this development, though on the last day allowed for appeals, a nine-page appeal was lodged with An Bord Pleanála.
The appeal report was prepared by a Dublin-based planning consultancy firm. It cited concerns surrounding the compatibility of the proposal with the surrounding area, traffic management issues and compliance with health and safety standards.
Eleven weeks later, An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission with revised conditions.
This isn’t the only time a planning objection has been made from several counties away.
The Irish Independent reported about a different planning application in 2022 related to a pet crematorium in Ennis. It received an objection from a person with a different name to any of the cases already mentioned, based in Meath.
The initial submission contained just a single line, which stated: “I would like to make an observation on the above application, I would contend that the application for a crematorium at this site is unsuitable and unnecessary.”
This development was initially granted by Clare County Council, but was appealed to An Bord Pleanála by the objector. A report was submitted by the same planning consultancy firm hired in the previous case.
*Name has been changed
Reporter: Conor O’Carroll • Editor: Maria Delaney • Main Image Design: Lorcan O’Reilly
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
BRT would be great if implemented properly with dedicated lanes. Hard to imagine how well that could happen though with the typically narrow streets around Dublin.
@Shane Corry: the swords20 idea and things like it are interesting too. Driving a car into the city these days is just awful. http://swords20.com – this uses the tunnel and the Luas line.
@Martin Byrne: This would be incredible as a Swords Express user. Its shambolic how long it takes to move up the quays
This ‘rapid’ bus network obviously doesn’t take account of recently announced reduced speed limits into the city.
@Chris Kirk:
I think the point is that they bypass the city
If you look really hard at pic 3 you can see a pig flying !
Payment options should be welcomed, assuming they’re implemented properly. There should be no need to interact with the driver at all, get on, tap your card/phone/watch, get to the destination, tap off.
@OU812: I get what you’re saying in that people can board a lot faster without help – most of us don’t need to interact with the driver at all.
If the card won’t scan, if a passenger or tourist isn’t sure what to do, if the WiFi fails for an online payment? There’s every reason for a driver to sort it out and keep people moving. If the bus is already full, there’s still every need for a driver. Several times I’ve been happy to let the driver sort out confusion and get people on and off efficiently. I believe there will always be a need for a driver on public transport to sort out and help people to use the service, including children, the blind users and disabled and new bus users, just saying.
Tallaght has the Luas and they get BRT as well? Why not focus on a less well served area?
@Seth Cheffetz: tallaght is very big. It’s the size of Cork city. This is from the other side. Stíl brt is useless. Should be rail
Should be up and running in no time I’d say.Start queuing now.
Does this mean more short term solutions from a government which can’t see further than their finger tips. More buses in Dublin will obviously add to congestion and more air pollution. When we now need long term solutions like provide a rapid rail network especially to Blanchardstown and get Busarus shifted out of the city centre.
@Chris Kirk: Why would you want Busaras shifted out of the city centre? Most people want to travel to the terminus in the city centre, don’t they? If you wanted an extra bus centre added, maybe, but why? Are you saying that people should be able to go from Dublin airport without entering Dublin city?
@Chris Kirk: More busses and less cars means less congestion. Dublin bus is moving to non oil fuels so less pollution. Bus terminals are traditionally in city centres
@Kal Ipers: How can you be sure that there will be less cars while there are no controls over cars entering the city. Busarus is the Bus Eireann terminal and as most people who travel on BE will tell you that buses never run to time because they usually get held up in the city congestion, especially between Blanchardstown and the city centre. I often travel on the 109 from Cavan scheduled journey just over two hours and sometimes takes three hours. A rail link would be a fast way of getting into the city without congestion. Busarus would be better in Blanchardstown as it is the nearest M50 link from the M3 & M4.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: When was the last time you travelled Bus Eireann, why would someone travelling from the west if Ireland want to go to Dublin via the airport.
‘Bus” and “Rapid Transit’ are a conflict of terminology
They need to put a congestion charge in Dublin city centre, and put limits on the amount of time Public workers can strike for. I. E. An hour a day, or two hours a day wont shut down the economy, but weeks without end is just too much.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: The M50 is the city bypass. Congestion charges are coming it is just a matter of time.
@Fiona Fitzgerald: The M50 is the city bypass. Congestion charges are coming it is just a matter of time.
It’s a great idea if it’s done properly. Express buses on all routes at peak times ie 6am to 9am then 430pm to 630pm. They do this in Sydney and makes the bus system so much better.
I’d imagine they’ll use the existing fleet they have.
Swords has a fantastic privately owned bus service called swords express. Travelsave and leap cards accepted, top quality service that uses the port tunell.
Regretfully dcc prefers free car parking on the North quays instead of a bus lane.
If only small changes were actually implemented instead of money spent on grandiose schemes that will never see the light of day………
@Ciaran Morgan: Swords express are also planning using Apple Pay and contactless for payment from next week!
Way ahead of Dublin Bus!
This, if it goes ahead (and I pray it doesn’t), would prove to be a very damaging, and congestion-incrasing waste of road space. Creating more useless “bus corridors”, when there are very few buses driving in them, will only create more traffic havoc and gridlock in our capital city by narrowing and reducing yet further the lanes that car users (who constitute the vast majority of commuters) can drive in.
Dublin needs a real change in leadership from the far-left (Sinn Fein, Green Party) crowd who currently control Dublin City Council. They are destroying Dublin with their anti-motorist (essentially anti-independent travel) ideology. We also need to see a big change at the bureaucratic level in Dublin City Council, with new, common sense leadership. We need a new DCC chief executive who recognises that motorists will be a big part of the future in terms of commuting to and within Dublin City: we need policies to make life easier for ordinary motoring commuters, allowing more efficient travel around the city, not more ideological policies which seek to artificially frustrate drivers getting in and around the city. Such policies should include building more tunnels under parts of the city which motorists could use, as most European cities do, this would greatly increase the efficiency of car travel; We could and should also widen the lanes which private cars use, this would help to increase the ease of travel around the city. We also need to remove so many of the superfluous traffic lights around Dublin (someone in Ireland is making a lot of money from selling and installing traffic lights!), and we need to remove the unnecessarily long time it takes for traffic lights to change from red to green in the city.
At a national level, we need a taoiseach (and we might get one soon) who is determined to help Dublin by having the metro underground railway system built. If we build an underground railway system, it will begin the process of finally offering a viable and efficient alternative for many road users. Hitherto, there is no efficient alternative for thousands of private car users. If we, very soon, build the Metro and the Dart Underground, it will genuinely help to relieve congestion in the city in a way that does not seek to cruelly and counter-productively punish motorists (who have a right in a free society to use their cars for travel).
For the record, this BRT proposal is neither new nor innovative. It was pitched a few years ago as “Swiftway” but died a death when:
A: it was clear that what was being proposed was just a few new bendy-buses like what they had not long before removed from the Nos. 4 & 10 routes, and
B: it was clear that the Swords route was being pitched by Pascal Donohue as a cheap alternative to Metro North.
So, they wait a few years and republish their report as new? There’s more money being spent on writing reports about what could be done than on actually doing what they’re writing about. I guess that’s the problem with pushing everyone through university and getting rid of ANCO and the trades.
@Brian Lenehan: there’s remnants of the Swiftway plan still on the NTA website (http://www.swiftway.ie)
If only 300million has being “committed” where will the other 700million euros come from? How much on-street parking will be removed and how many local business will loose customers and staff?
Is the leap card obsolete already ? Isn’t that cashless integrated ticketing ?
How much of the 1billion will be spent on actual buses and actual drivers
Anything that makes public transport more convenient/feasible for commuters is a step in the right direction, although I would prefer if these projects were being put in place before/ in tandem with the traffic restricting projects they’re introducing to the city
@Darren Tully: There is nothing convenient about a bus that takes three hours for a scheduled two hour journey. The transport minister is flying kites, because he knows nothing about bus transport into Dublin from rural Ireland
Clondalkin has the worst bus service ya need to get 2 buses to the local hospital
have your say