Core Refusal Reason
The application for an extension of duration was refused because no works had commenced on-site and no substantial works had been carried out, failing to meet the statutory requirements of Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- A site inspection and the applicant's own documentation confirmed that no physical works have commenced on the development permitted under planning reference 17/188.
- The application fails to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 42(1)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), which require that substantial works must have been carried out during the appropriate period.
- Recent legislative changes to the Planning and Development Act have removed the possibility of extending the duration for un-commenced developments where substantial works have not been performed.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
Multi Storey (Limerick) Ltd sought an extension of duration for a previously granted permission (Ref: 17/188) involving the change of use from retail to restaurant and a two-storey rear extension at 43 Thomas Street, Limerick. The Planning Authority refused the request following a site inspection which confirmed that no works had commenced on-site. As the applicant failed to demonstrate that substantial works were carried out during the initial permission period, the proposal did not meet the st...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.