Core Planning Reasoning
The Inspector concluded that the 21cm widening of the vehicular entrance (from 2.89m to 3.1m) does not constitute 'material widening' within the meaning of Article 9(1)(a)(ii) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and therefore the works remain exempted development under Class 5, Part 1 of Schedule 2.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The proposed widening involves the carrying out of works and therefore constitutes development as defined by Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
- The works fall within the scope of Class 5, Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations regarding the alteration of a gateway or boundary wall within the curtilage of a house.
- The 21cm increase is minor, virtually imperceptible to a casual observer, and does not constitute 'material' widening, meaning the restrictive provisions of Article 9(1)(a)(ii) are not triggered.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Objective A (To provide residential development and improve residential amenity)Development Plan standard width for vehicular entrances (3.5m)
Decision Document Summary
The case involves a Section 5 referral to determine if widening a vehicular entrance by 21cm at 17 Killiney Gate is exempted development. The site is a detached red-brick dwelling in a residential cul-de-sac zoned 'Objective A'. The Planning Authority initially ruled the works were not exempt because the adjacent roadway exceeds 4m in width, invoking a restriction in Article 9(1)(a)(ii) against the material widening of an access. The appellant argued that such a minor increase is 'de minimis' an...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.
PDF Document Missing
The original decision document for this case could not be linked. This often happens for older cases or those with restricted documentation.
Search for case on ABP