Core Refusal Reason
The development had not commenced and no substantial works were carried out during the original permission period, failing to meet the statutory requirements for an extension of duration under Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The development permitted under file no. 19/241 has not commenced, and consequently, no substantial works were carried out during the appropriate period of the permission.
- Under Section 42(1)(a)(i)(III) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), the Planning Authority can only grant an extension if satisfied that substantial works were completed, a condition which was not met in this instance.
- The applicant failed to provide necessary information required under Article 42(ff) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, further precluding the granting of an extension.
Cited Policies (CDP)
WCCC Development Plan 2022 - 2028
Decision Document Summary
Richard and Marlene Ryan sought an Extension of Duration for planning permission (ref: 19/241) to construct a single-storey side extension at No. 18 Berkeley Court, Maypark Village, Waterford. Although the application was submitted within the valid timeframe, a site inspection and the applicant's own documentation confirmed that development had not yet commenced. The local authority refused the extension because current legislation (Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000) requires t...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.