2512

The development will comprise an extension of duration of the appropriate period of ABP permission reference 305095-19 which comprises of 51 number dwellings in terraced, semi detached and detached format and will range in height from one-two number storeys, as amended by permission reference 21508 which comprises of the replacement of 18.no 2 storey semi detached and terraced dwellings, with no 40no. dwellings in apartment/duplex form accommodated in 5no. three storey buildings (each consisting of 4 no. ground floor apartments and 4 no.duplex dwellings over first/second floor floor levels and consequential alterations to the site layout plan including public and communal open spaces, bin storage, car parking and associated site development works.

Refused

Core Refusal Reason

The Planning Authority was not satisfied that substantial works had been carried out on the development prior to the application for an extension of duration, as required under Section 42(1)(a)(i)(III) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

Decision Maker's Conclusion

  • The physical works completed on-site, including site clearance, access road works, and limited foundation pouring for 11 units, were deemed insubstantial relative to the overall scale of the permitted 72-unit residential development.
  • The applicant failed to provide necessary documentary evidence, such as receipts, invoices, or contracts, to verify the claimed financial expenditure of €3,241,600 or the off-site manufacture of 32 timber-frame units.
  • There was a lack of evidence regarding compliance with critical pre-commencement planning conditions, specifically those requiring water and wastewater connection agreements with Uisce Éireann.

Cited Policies (CDP)

Decision Document Summary

This application sought a five-year extension of duration for a residential development comprising 72 units at Blackrock Road, Haggardstown, Dundalk, Co. Louth, originally permitted under ABP-305095-19 and 21/508. Although the Planning Authority accepted that the development had commenced, the extension was refused because the works performed to date were considered minor and did not constitute 'substantial works' as defined by legislation. Additionally, the applicant failed to provide sufficien...
SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.