Core Refusal Reason
Failure to demonstrate that substantial works were carried out during the original permission period as required by Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence or clarity to prove that substantial works were carried out pursuant to the permission during the appropriate period.
- The Planning Authority was not satisfied that the development would be completed within a reasonable timeframe or the proposed 18-month extension period.
- The application failed to meet the mandatory statutory criteria set out in Section 42(1)(a)(III) and (IV) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This application sought an extension of duration for a previously granted permission (D18A/1118) involving the demolition of an existing building and the erection of a new structure at 3 Kilbogget Villas, Cabinteely. The Planning Authority refused the extension primarily because the applicant did not satisfy the statutory requirement to prove that substantial works had been completed during the initial life of the permission. Furthermore, the lack of a clear phasing program or evidence of intent...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.