Core Refusal Reason
The development had not commenced and no substantial works were carried out within the original permission period, failing to meet the mandatory statutory requirements of Section 42(1)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).
Decision Maker's Conclusion
- The applicant explicitly stated in the application form that the development has not yet commenced.
- No substantial works were carried out pursuant to the original permission (Pl. Ref. 16/789) during its appropriate period.
- The application fails to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 42(1)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) for granting an extension of duration.
Cited Policies (CDP)
Decision Document Summary
This application sought an extension of duration for planning permission (Ref. 16/789) involving the demolition of a porch and the construction of a single-storey side extension at Kilcalf East, Tallow, Co. Waterford. The local authority refused the request because the development had not commenced and no substantial works had been undertaken during the initial permission period. Consequently, the proposal failed to meet the statutory criteria set out in Section 42 of the Planning and Developmen...SOURCE PDFOpen Original
Note: If code appears below, the council site is blocking the preview. Please open the original file.