Core Refusal Reason
The application for an Extension of Duration (EOD) was refused because the development had not commenced and no substantial works were carried out during the previous permission period, failing to meet the mandatory statutory requirements of Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The development permitted under planning reference 15/315 and previously extended under 20/275 has not commenced on site.
- No substantial works were carried out during the appropriate period of the permission, which is a mandatory requirement for an extension under Section 42(1)(a)(I) & (III) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
- The Planning Authority is legally precluded from granting a further extension of duration as the statutory criteria regarding commencement and substantial works have not been satisfied.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The applicant sought a second five-year Extension of Duration (EOD) for a field entrance for agricultural use at Ballycashin, Butlerstown, Waterford, on lands zoned as 'High Amenity'. The Planning Authority refused the application because the development had not yet commenced and no substantial works had been performed during the previous extension period, with the applicant citing contractor availability issues. Consequently, the proposal failed to satisfy the legal requirements of Section 42 o...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.