Irishplanningnews.ie

Keeping up to date with planning in Ireland

Copyright

Use of content from this website for newspaper articles, blogs etc is permitted, subject to irishplanningnews.ie being quoted as the source.
Please feel free to volunteer any planning information for the website such as information about new plans etc. Email david@planningconsultant.ie
Notice: While every effort is made to verify the content of this site, the site owners cannot accept responsibility for the information contained.
  • The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has issued a public notice stating that it intends to review and update the Development Management Guidelines for Planning Authorities 2007.

    The Department will consider whether changes should be made to the planning application process in order to improve efficiency while continuing to provide for appropriate and necessary public participation and environmental assessment.

    The Department will also consider whether further changes should be made to the exempted development provisions of the Regulations, specifically whether it is appropriate to exempt further development from the requirement to obtain planning permission.

    Comments/submissions are invited by Friday 14th March 2014.

    Published on February 5, 2014 By:David Mulcahy · Filed under: Exempted Development, Planning Guidelines, Planning Notices; Tagged as: ,
    1 Comment
  • A question came before An Bord Pleanala as to whether the parking of a mobile sign in the Little Island Business Park, Little Island, Cork for the purpose of advertising ‘Carpets Direct’ is or is not exempted development.

    Despite the plethora of such signs around the country, many which do not have the benefit of planning permission, the Board’s Inspector noted that this appeared to be the first occasion on which this particular type of signage has been the subject of a referral to An Bord Pleanala in order to determine if it is exempt from planning permission.

    An Bord Pleanála concluded that the parking of the mobile sign at this location for the purpose of advertising constitutes a material change of use of the land on which it is located, being the use of land for the exhibition of advertisements.

    They also concluded that the parking of the mobile sign would not come within the meaning of development consisting of the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of a structure nor does it come within the scope of any of the exemptions provided for in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended.

    In terms of the specific sign which formed the basis of this assessment it was further found that any potential exemption that might apply in this instance is nullified by the fact that it would contravene the terms of a planning permission and any potential exemptions that might arise are also nullified as the parking of this sign at the location proposed would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard.

    Therefore An Bord Pleanála decided that the said parking of a mobile sign in the Little Island Business Park, Little Island, Cork for the purpose of advertising ‘Carpets Direct’ is development and is not exempted development.   Whilst each case is based on its own merits it seems clear that planning permission is required for such mobile signage as it involves a material change of use of the land.

    Published on November 29, 2013 By:David Mulcahy · Filed under: Exempted Development, Important An Bord Pleanala Decisions; Tagged as: , ,
    No Comments
  • In a recent referral case in Waterford, An Bord Pleanala has ruled, by a majority of 4 to 2, that a change of use from a permitted betting office which was never used for such use, to a hairdresser shop, is exempt from planning permission.  The general understanding heretofore was that only when a planning permission was fully implemented, could exempted development then be availed of.  Therefore this decision could well become a landmark case.

    The case relates to a building on Cork Road, Waterford where permission was granted, inter alia, for a fast food take-away and a betting office at ground floor level.  The take-away use was implemented but the betting office unit remained empty.

    Waterford City Council issued a declaration in March 2013 which concluded that the use as a hairdresser shop is development and is exempt development.   The development is considered exempt under Class 14(d) Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Regulations – which exempts a change of use from use from a betting office to a shop (a hairdresser falls within the definition of a shop).

    The Senior An Bord Pleanala Inspector dealing with the case however disagreed:-

    Read the rest of this entry »

    Published on October 7, 2013 By:David Mulcahy · Filed under: Exempted Development, Important An Bord Pleanala Decisions; Tagged as: ,
    1 Comment
  • Following a complaint regarding flooding, Monaghan County Council referred a question to An Bord Pleanala as to whether the construction of a bridge / culvert (on agricultural lands) is or is not exempted development.

    According to the An Bord Pleanla Inspector the original access in this location was a relatively simple agricultural style access with a concrete slab bridging the stream supported by concrete reinforcements on both sides of the stream. The original bridge structure did not have any concrete bottom to the stream bed. A new bridge incorporating a concrete culvert of the stream was constructed including metal side railings.

    The Planning Authority and the landowner were both of the opinion that the development undertaken on the site comes within the scope of Class 3 of Part 3 of the Second Schedule of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (as amended). Class 3 states that the following shall be exempted development for the purposes of the act: Read the rest of this entry »

    Published on February 15, 2013 By:David Mulcahy · Filed under: Exempted Development, Important An Bord Pleanala Decisions, Rural Planning; Tagged as: , ,
    No Comments
  • A question came before An Bord Pleanala as to whether the erection of a raised timber deck structure to the front of a dwelling house in Shankill is development or exempted development.

    The raised timber deck structure is situated to the front of the dwelling and is accessed via steps from a hard surface driveway. It is enclosed by a guard rail and newel posts.

    Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council had previously concluded that the development is not exempted development under section 4 (1) (h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 as the decking structure materially affects the external appearance of this dwelling in a manner that renders the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure and neighbouring structures.

    An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the raised timber deck was exempted development under the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (Class 6 (a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2).

    However the guard rail and newel posts were not considered exempted development under the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001.  Furthermore they were not considered exempted development under section 4 (1) (h) of the Planning and Development Act.

    Therefore the Board issues a split decision with the erection of the raised timber deck to the front being deemed exempted development and the erection of the guard rail and newel posts deemed not to be exempted development.

    Published on January 10, 2013 By:David Mulcahy · Filed under: Exempted Development, Residentail; Tagged as: ,
    No Comments
  • Wexford County Council put a question to An Bord Pleanala as to whether the use of agricultural land at Duncormick in Wexford as a clay pigeon shoot for limited periods in any year is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:

     An Bord Pleanála concluded that –

    •  the use of the lands is for agricultural purposes,
    • the use of the land for clay pigeon shooting is a sporting/recreational use, which is  undertaken by visitors to the farmer’s land,
    • a change of use of the land occurs when clay pigeon shooting takes place,
    • this change of use is material and gives rise to impacts in relation to noise, traffic and environmental impacts,
    • the change of use occurs on a regular basis, and
    • the nature of the change of use is considered an activity and not an event, so therefore does not benefit from any exemption under the Planning Regulations.

     An Bord Pleanála, therefore concluded  that the said use of agricultural land at Duncormick, County Wexford for use as a clay pigeon shoot for limited periods in any year is development and is not exempted development.

    Published on November 19, 2012 By:David Mulcahy · Filed under: Rural Planning; Tagged as: ,
    No Comments
  • An Bord Pleanala were asked to decide whether the change of use of an industrial premises to a retail discount store at Roxboro Discount Store, Roxborough, County Roscommon is or is not development or is or is not exempted development.

    The building in question is 4 kilometres outside Roscommon town. The applicant argued that the building originally had permission for a spring water bottle plant and, over time, customers came to the plant to make purchases directly.   This retail element legitimized the current bulk retail use of the building.

    An Bord Pleanála agreed with their inspector that the said use is a material change of use as the use of the premises has changed from class 4, use as a light industrial building, to class 1, a shop.  It therefore constitutes development and is not exempted development.

    Published on October 4, 2012 By:David Mulcahy · Filed under: Exempted Development; Tagged as: , ,
    No Comments
  • Kildare County Council referred a question to An Bord Pleanala as to whether a ‘Shomera’ structure in the rear garden of a house in Maynooth was exempted development.  The ‘Shomera’ was being used as a hobby room and for storage.

    The Senior Inspector recommended that the structure was not exempted development referring to the excessive size and the use of the structure for additional habitable space to that of the main dwelling. Read the rest of this entry »

    Published on January 5, 2012 By:David Mulcahy · Filed under: Exempted Development, Residentail; Tagged as: , ,
    No Comments