Meath councillors back council's rejection of exemption for IPAS centre in industrial unit
The application, submitted by Erinpark Ltd, sought a section five declaration for what it described as "non-material amendments to the facade" of Unit 29 in Oaktree Business Park, along with a change of use from commercial purposes to temporary housing for those seeking international protection.
Trim councillors supported the council's decision, emphasising the importance of proper regulatory scrutiny.
Councillor Ronan Moore said: "I didn't expect these exemption applications to – succeed. The reason being that these buildings are commercial or industrial in nature. To make them suitable for people to live in – and to meet requirements around disability access, fire safety, and building regulations – significant internal works would be needed. And in almost every case, this would also involve external alterations, and if external works are required then it cannot be considered exempt development.'
A separate application concerning a premises on Fairgreen in Trim is currently under review, with a decision expected by June 10.
Mr Moore added: "I would like to expect that the same logic will hold up in the second application in town due to be made by June 10. And that this too will not be granted exempted development. However, there is a deeper issue here and that is how the government has allowed private and commercial interests to drive the placement of IPAS centres.
"And as a result of this, no consideration appears to be given in the first instance to the needs and concerns of either the potential International Protection Applicants or the communities that are expected to welcome them. As a result, local towns and villages are for weeks left frustrated and uncertain as to what is happening in their community. This is simply not good enough."
Councillor Noel French also welcomed the outcome, stating he was 'glad' the exemption was denied.
'The building was not suitable for use as an IPAS centre and for use by human beings. The government should address the use of section 5s and reform the legislation,' he said.
In its decision, the planner pointed out that the applicant did not provide sufficient documentation about the proposed changes, including a lack of drawings to clearly outline the modifications to the facade.
The planner's report indicated that the "proposed development would most likely require additional windows, vents and potential fire safety measures in order to convert the existing structure into a habitable space in terms of natural lighting, ventilation fire safety etc" and that in order to "successfully change the use of the structure to provide accommodation suitable for human habitation, material changes to the external facade would be required".
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
3 days ago
- Irish Independent
Meath councillors back council's rejection of exemption for IPAS centre in industrial unit
The application, submitted by Erinpark Ltd, sought a section five declaration for what it described as "non-material amendments to the facade" of Unit 29 in Oaktree Business Park, along with a change of use from commercial purposes to temporary housing for those seeking international protection. Trim councillors supported the council's decision, emphasising the importance of proper regulatory scrutiny. Councillor Ronan Moore said: "I didn't expect these exemption applications to – succeed. The reason being that these buildings are commercial or industrial in nature. To make them suitable for people to live in – and to meet requirements around disability access, fire safety, and building regulations – significant internal works would be needed. And in almost every case, this would also involve external alterations, and if external works are required then it cannot be considered exempt development.' A separate application concerning a premises on Fairgreen in Trim is currently under review, with a decision expected by June 10. Mr Moore added: "I would like to expect that the same logic will hold up in the second application in town due to be made by June 10. And that this too will not be granted exempted development. However, there is a deeper issue here and that is how the government has allowed private and commercial interests to drive the placement of IPAS centres. "And as a result of this, no consideration appears to be given in the first instance to the needs and concerns of either the potential International Protection Applicants or the communities that are expected to welcome them. As a result, local towns and villages are for weeks left frustrated and uncertain as to what is happening in their community. This is simply not good enough." Councillor Noel French also welcomed the outcome, stating he was 'glad' the exemption was denied. 'The building was not suitable for use as an IPAS centre and for use by human beings. The government should address the use of section 5s and reform the legislation,' he said. In its decision, the planner pointed out that the applicant did not provide sufficient documentation about the proposed changes, including a lack of drawings to clearly outline the modifications to the facade. The planner's report indicated that the "proposed development would most likely require additional windows, vents and potential fire safety measures in order to convert the existing structure into a habitable space in terms of natural lighting, ventilation fire safety etc" and that in order to "successfully change the use of the structure to provide accommodation suitable for human habitation, material changes to the external facade would be required".
The Irish Sun
6 days ago
- The Irish Sun
Capt Tom's shameless daughter & her husband owed eye-watering sum by their OWN company as firm falls £117k into the red
CAPTAIN Sir Tom Moore's shameless daughter and her husband are owed an eye-watering sum from their own business, company accounts have revealed. Advertisement 3 Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin are owed tens of thousands of pounds from their business, according to company accounts Credit: Getty Images - Getty 3 Ms Ingram-Moore was previously found to have personally benefited from the charity set-up in honour of Captain Sir Tom Moore Credit: PA 3 The veteran's daughter has maintained that she 'did nothing wrong' Credit: PA However, this was an enormous increase from the £30,523 they were owed in 2023 - with all of this coming as the management consultancy company's net assets plummeted from £5,385 to negative £117,880 between 2023 and 2024, reports the It is not yet clear, however, if the money has been paid out to the couple - and it could be that the £30,523 due in 2023 is still included in 2024's figures. Mr and Ms Ingram-Moore have found themselves The veteran won the nation's hearts when he walked 100 laps of his garden to help raise money for the NHS ahead of his 100th birthday in 2020. Advertisement Read More on UK News Raising more than £38 million for NHS Charities Together, Captain Tom was knighted by the Queen in July that year - and later published his memoir, Despite writing in the book that there was "a chance to raise even more money for the charitable foundation now established in my name", his new charity - the Captain Tom Foundation - was marred by scandals related to his daughter and son-in-law. Following the veteran's death in 2021, a charity watchdog eventually discovered "repeated failures of governance and integrity", finding Mr and Ms Ingram-Moore had Perhaps the most notable peak of the scandal was when the couple put the charity's money into the construction of an Advertisement Most read in The Sun In January, they went a step further in Since these scandals have erupted in the media, the couple have faced even more money problems. Captain Tom's daughter STILL cashing in on dad's legacy by using him to flog £3.5k 'life-coaching' sessions The pair, who have been trying to sell their home, where Captain Tom achieved his famous feat, have seen its price slashed multiple times. Despite releasing a book to try and improve incomes, Mrs Ingram-Moore's work Grief: Public Face Private Loss was reported to have Advertisement Documents from Companies House also show that the amount of money the Ingram-Moores owe to creditors increased by more than £80,000 in one year for Maytrix Group Ltd. In that same time frame, the amount of money held in fixed assets crashed by more than £60,000. On top of this, the cash owed by debtors and held at a bank or in hand increased by less than £20,000. This could indicate that the money the couple are owed from the company is unlikely to be paid out, due to the debts. Advertisement The Ingram-Moores are the sole directors of the company, which cut down its employees from five to two between 2023 and 2024. Government documents also showed last year that Maytrix Group claimed up to £100,000 in furlough money over a 10-month period. How Captain Sir Tom Moore rose to fame & his daughter's controversies March 2020 - D-Day veteran Captain Tom Moore walks 100 laps around his Bedfordshire garden before his 100th birthday, raising £30million for the NHS during the first lockdown. April 2020 - Captain Tom reaches No. 1 in the charts with his cover of 'You'll Never Walk Alone'. He receives 100,000 cards for his 100th birthday, which is marked with a Battle of Britain flypast. A train is named after him. July 2020 - Captain Tom is knighted by the Queen in a special private ceremony at Windsor Castle. September 2020 - Hannah Ingram-Moore launches the Captain Tom Foundation to combat loneliness. December 2020 - Drones swarm into the shape of Captain Tom's face at the New Year's Eve firework display in London. February 2021 - Captain Sir Tom Moore dies after catching covid-19. February 2022 - The Charity Commission launches a probe into the Captain Tom foundation after it paid £50,000 to companies run by Hannah Ingram-Moore and her husband Colin. July 2023 - The foundation stops accepting donations. Planning chiefs order Hannah to tear down an unauthorised spa at her Bedfordshire home. The building had been approved to be used "in connection with the Captain Tom Foundation and its charitable objectives". But a larger building with a spa pool was built instead and was denied retrospective planning permission. Hannah appeals. September 2023 - accounts reveal Hannah received more than £70,000 to head the foundation. October 2023 - Hannah loses her appeal and is ordered to demolish the spa and restore the garden to its original condition. January 2024 - Demolition work begins. November 2024 - Probe finds family "repeatedly benefitted" from "mismanaged" foundation. January 2025 - Her business Club Nook collapses with just £149 in assets compared to £336,300 a year prior. The foundation's website also disappears. And, despite making hefty profits during the pandemic, the company also took out £47,500 in Covid loans. It was also revealed last August that Ms Ingram-Moore was paid "thousands of pounds" through her family company for appearances linked to the charity set up in her father's name. Advertisement She reportedly attended and judged award ceremonies in both 2021 and 2022 as interim chief executive of the Captain Tom Foundation. However, payments for these appearances were made to the Maytrix Group. At the time, the BBC claimed she had received the hefty payments on behalf of Maytrix for attending the Virgin Media O2 Captain Tom Foundation Connector Awards – despite promotional videos suggesting she was representing the charity. During this time, she was understood to be on a salary of £85,000 as the charity's interim chief executive. Advertisement Accounts from the Captain Tom Moore Foundation also reveal that Maytrix made a large profit from expenses it charged to the charity. The company was given back £37,942 in reimbursements, according to foundation accounts. This included £5,030 for "website costs", £4,500 for "office rental", £656 for "phone costs", and a whopping £27,205 for "third-party consultancy costs". The Ingram-Moores, however, said that the charity incurred costs were initially funded by Maytrix Group, before then being reimbursed when "sufficient funds were available." Advertisement They also said that all spending was "correctly authorised by the independent trustees". The Charity Commission also said in 2022 that it was satisfied the payments were "reasonable reimbursement" for expenses incurred by the companies in the formation of the charity. INGRAM-MOORES BENEFITED 'SIGNIFICANTLY' In a TV interview in March, Ms Ingram-Moore It followed a Advertisement The watchdog found there were misleading suggestions the proceeds from a £1.5 million book deal would be made to the charity. This included Captain Tom's autobiography Tomorrow Will Be A Good Day. It also said the couple had twice been invited to "rectify matters" by donating money to the charity "in line with their original intentions as understood by those involved" but had "declined to do so". The Charity Commission however confirmed at the conclusion of its inquiry on 21 November 2024 that there was no criminal wrong-doing by the family. Advertisement Director of Policy at the Charity Commission Paul Latham told He said: "No, we have found no evidence of a crime. What we have found is that there was misconduct and or mismanagement in how the charity was run." The Ingram-Moores also said that the family "never had any access" to the charity's bank account, saying all payments from the charity were made by independent trustees. They added that there was a "majority" of independent trustees on the board of the charity "at all times". Advertisement
Agriland
29-05-2025
- Agriland
Reports of owning 20,000ac in Tipperary ‘totally false'
By Paul Neilan Bloodstock billionaire John Magnier has told the High Court that money doesn't mean much to him, but it does offer a way to keep score 'on good days and bad days' in business. Magnier also told the High Court that he employed experts in legal and financial fields because some advisory decisions were 'out of my pay grade'. The billionaire also told the court that a barrister is 'trying to portray me as a bad guy' in a case where he says he had an exclusive agreement to buy land in Co. Tipperary for €15 million but missed out when the owners preferred a higher bidder. Lawyers acting for Magnier, founder of the world-famous Coolmore Stud, have claimed before the High Court that a US-based construction magnate, Maurice Regan, the preferred buyer, engaged in a 'full-frontal assault' on Magnier's claimed deal to buy 751ac of land in Tipperary for €15 million. Magnier's proceedings claim that Barne Estate, having reneged on the alleged deal, preferred to sell the land at the higher price of €22.25 million to Maurice Regan, the founder of the New York building firm JT Magen. Magnier has told the High Court that when he inquired about what happened with the bid, the estate agent involved told him: 'One word, John: greed.' Magnier deal John Magnier – along with his adult children, John Paul Magnier and Kate Wachman – wants to enforce the alleged deal. They say the deal was struck at an August 22, 2023, kitchen meeting at John Magnier's Coolmore home. They also claim an exclusivity agreement that was in effect from August 31 to September 30 stipulated that the estate would not permit its representatives to solicit or encourage any expression of interest, inquiry or offer on the property from anyone other than Magnier. Barne Estate has been held for the benefit of Richard Thomson-Moore and others by a Jersey trust. The Magniers have sued the Barne Estate, Thomson-Moore and three companies of IQEQ (Jersey) Ltd. group, seeking to enforce the purported deal, which they say had been 'unequivocally' agreed. Image: Coolmore Stud Facebook The Barne Estate representatives say there was never any such agreement and subsequently they preferred to sell the estate to Regan. Maurice Regan is not a party to the case. High Court At the High Court, senior counsel Martin Hayden, for Barne, asked John Magnier if he is a billionaire. Magnier replied: 'I'd hope so – I've been fortunate.' Magnier said he was aware that the Thomson-Moores were selling the land so they could move to Australia to get better medical treatment for a family member. Magnier said he did not think the Thomson-Moore family were 'greedy', that he dealt with them in a 'fair and honourable way' and that the comment about alleged 'greed' was something that was said to him by the estate agent. Martin Hayden asked if there was a 'disparity' between Magnier's billionaire fortune and a family, whose sole asset was the farm they were selling for medical bills and who were being offered €7.2 million more than Magnier had offered. The senior counsel asked Magnier if this, in his opinion, amounted to 'greed'. 'You're trying to portray me as the bad guy here. Nobody else would have offered them €15 million. It was the highest bid at the time,' Magnier responded. He told the court that he believed the Thomson-Moores could have been 'misled' by Regan, who Magnier alleged wanted to keep land prices in Tipperary down. John Magnier also told Hayden that he did not think the Thomson-Moores were behaving in a 'greedy' manner when they preferred Regan's offer, which was €7.25 million more than his own. Magnier told the senior counsel that he left school at 15 with 'not a very good education' and that he employed 'experts' in legal and financial matters because some decisions were 'above my pay grade'. The barrister asked the billionaire how much land he owned in Tipperary. Magnier answered, 'very little', and said reports of him owning 20,000ac were 'totally false'. Magnier said that he has five children and 15 grandchildren, that his operation employs 1,300 people and that he would not do deals on distressed properties or people under duress to sell. When the Barne Estate's senior counsel asked about Magnier's wealth, the billionaire said that money does not mean much to him but that it was a way to 'keep the score' on 'good and bad days' in business. Paul Gallagher, senior counsel for John Magnier, has said Maurice Regan was 'the man who started all this'. Counsel said the US-based businessman had a 'grandiose and mistaken' belief that the sale should not go ahead to Magnier and set out to 'destroy' the agreement to purchase Barne. The trial continues before Justice Max Barrett.
