Core Refusal Reason
The application for an extension of duration was refused because the development had not commenced and no substantial works were carried out within the original permission period, meaning the Planning Authority was statute-barred from granting an extension under Section 42(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- A site inspection confirmed that no physical works have commenced on the site, and the activities cited by the applicant, such as preparing drawings and applying for licenses, are classified as preparatory work rather than substantial construction.
- The new provisions under Section 42(1A) of the Act, which allow for extensions of un-commenced housing developments, were deemed inapplicable in this instance based on the timing of the application relative to the 2025 Amendment Act.
- Pursuant to Section 42(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), the Planning Authority is legally prohibited from granting an extension of duration where substantial works have not been carried out during the applicable period of the permission.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This application sought an extension of duration for planning permission P20/202, which granted permission for the construction of a two-storey dwelling to the rear garden of No. 73 Maudlin Street, Kilkenny. While the applicant cited preparatory actions such as the preparation of construction drawings and license applications, a site inspection by the Planning Authority confirmed that no physical works had begun on-site. As the development had not commenced and no substantial works were performe...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.