Core Refusal Reason
The application failed to meet the mandatory statutory requirements of Section 42(1)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), as development had not commenced and no substantial works had been carried out on-site.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- A site inspection and the applicant's own submission confirmed that development has not commenced and no substantial works have been carried out on foot of the parent permission (Pl. Ref. 20/1081).
- Legislative amendments introduced via Section 28(1) of the 2016 Act removed the previous provision (Section 42(1)(a)(ii)) which allowed for extensions based on commercial, economic, or technical considerations beyond the applicant's control.
- As the development does not comply with the commencement and substantial works criteria set out in Section 42(1)(a)(i) of the Act, there is no longer a legislative provision to facilitate the extension of duration sought.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This application sought an Extension of Duration (EOD) for a previously approved development (Pl. Ref. 20/1081) consisting of a dwelling, garage, and wastewater treatment system on a greenfield site in Moycullen. The applicant requested the extension citing their residence abroad as the reason for the delay; however, the Planning Authority noted that the legislative pathway for extensions based on such 'technical or economic' delays was repealed in 2021. Because a site inspection confirmed that ...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.