Core Refusal Reason
The application failed to meet the statutory requirements of Section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) because substantial works had not commenced on the site prior to the application for an extension of duration.
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The applicant explicitly stated that construction works have not yet commenced on the site, a fact which was confirmed by the Planning Authority during a site inspection.
- Under Section 42(1)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the authority must be satisfied that substantial works were carried out during the initial permission period to grant an extension.
- As no substantial works were undertaken, the proposal does not comply with the mandatory legislative requirements for extending the appropriate period of the planning permission.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
The applicants sought a three-year extension of duration for planning permission (Ref. 18/387) to construct a detached 3-bedroom dormer bungalow and associated site works at 7 Leixlip Gate, Kilmacredock, Leixlip. Although the application was submitted within the correct timeframe relative to the expiry date, the Planning Authority determined that no physical works had been initiated on the site. Consequently, the extension was refused as it failed to satisfy the statutory criteria under Section ...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.