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
have your say