Exempt Change of Use
Planning and Development Regulations
471
PART 4
Article 10
Exempted development – Classes of Use
CLASS 1
Use as a shop.
CLASS 2
Use for the provision of—
(a) financial services,
(b) professional services (other than health or medical services),
(c) any other services (including use as a betting office),
where the services are provided principally to visiting members of the public.
CLASS 3
Use as an office, other than a use to which class 2 of this Part of this Schedule applies.
CLASS 4
Use as a light industrial building.
CLASS 5
Use as a wholesale warehouse or as a repository.
CLASS 6
Use as a residential club, a guest house or a hostel (other than a hostel where care is provided).
CLASS 7
Use—
(a) for public worship or religious instruction,
(b) for the social or recreational activities of a religious body,
(c) as a monastery or convent.
CLASS 8
Use—
(a) as a health centre or clinic or for the provision of any medical or health services (but not the use of the house of a consultant or practitioner, or any building attached to the house or within the curtilage thereof, for that purpose),
(b) as a crèche,
(c) as a day nursery,
(d) as a day centre.
CLASS 9
Use—
(a) for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (but not the use of a house for that purpose),
(b) a museum,
(c) a public library or public reading room,
(d) a public hall,
(e) an exhibition hall,
(f) a social centre, community centre or non-residential club,
but not as a dance hall or concert hall.
CLASS 10
Use as—
(a) an art gallery (but not for the sale or hire of works of art),
(b) a museum,
(c) a public library or public reading room,
(d) a public hall,
(e) an exhibition hall,
(f) a social centre, community centre or non-residential club, but not as a dance hall or concert hall.
CLASS 11
Use as—
(a) a theatre,
(b) a cinema,
(c) a concert hall,
(d) a bingo hall,
(e) a skating rink or gymnasium or for other indoor sports or recreation not involving the use of motor vehicles or firearms.
CLASS 12
Use as a Public House, meaning a premises which has been licensed for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor on the premises under the Licensing Acts 1833 to 2018.
S. 5 Declarations
20.RL.3471
Roscommon County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of land as a car park at Carrowmurragh, Kiltoom, Athlone, County Roscommon is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Liam O’Doherty of 62 Connaught Street, Athlone, County Westmeath requested a declaration on this question from Roscommon County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 3rd day of March, 2016 stating that the matter is development and is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Liam O’Doherty referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 29th day of March, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has reformulated the question as follows: “whether the occasional use of land as an overspill car park and the use of temporary lighting in association with that use at Carrowmurragh, Kiltoom, Athlone, County Roscommon is or is not development or is or is not exempted development”:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) article 6(1) and article 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 37 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(d) the submissions of the parties to the referral,
(e) the planning history of the site and the pattern of development in the area, and
(f) the report of the planning inspector:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) the use of agricultural fields as a car park constitutes a change of use of these lands,
(b) the change of use in raises issues that are material in planning terms including in respect of traffic and residential amenity impacts and is, therefore, considered to be a material change of use for the purposes of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and is, therefore, development,
(c) the occasional use of land at Carrowmurragh, Kiltoom, Athlone, as an overspill car park and the use of temporary lighting in association with that use is development and is not exempted development as it does not come within the scope of Class 37 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, not being of itself a local event, and
(d) there are no exemptions provided for in the said Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, by which such use as a car park would be exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the occasional use of land as an overspill car park and the use of temporary lighting in association with that use at Carrowmurragh, Kiltoom, Athlone, County Roscommon is development and is not exempted development. Dated this 2nd day of February 2017.
APB-302856-18
Dublin County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the proposed use of Apartment number 26, Chancery Hall, Blackhall Place, Dublin (a corner building with Ellis Quay), for short-stay accommodation lettings is or is not development and whether the development constitutes exempted development or does not constitute exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Sacreto Limited care of Hughes Planning and Development Consultants of 70 Pearse Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the question from Dublin City Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 28th day of September, 2018 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Sacreto Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 24th day of October, 2018:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
- sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended;
- Articles 5 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended;
- Parts 1 and 4 of the Second Schedule to those Regulations;
- the use of the entire apartment for a series of short term lettings;
- the absence of any occupation of the apartment, or any portion of the apartment, by any permanent resident;
- relevant case law, and in particular the High Court decision of Barron J. in Thomas McMahon and Others v Right Honourable Lord Mayor, Alderman and Burgesses of Dublin (High Court 1989 No.9870P), and Monaghan County Council v Brogan [1987] I. R. 333;
- relevant cases previously decided by An Bord Pleanála, including referral cases RL3490, RL3502 and ABP-300996-18, and planning appeal case PL 29S.249430;
- the material planning considerations involved with short term lettings use;
- the planning history of the subject site;
- the submissions of the referrer and of the planning authority; and
- the report of the Inspector:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded –
- the use of a residential apartment for shortterm accommodation lettings, as outlined in the submissions, constitutes a change of use from the permitted use as a residential apartment, having regard to case law,
- the change of use to an apartment for short term accommodation lettings, as described above, raises planning considerations that are materially different to the planning considerations relating to the permitted use as a residential apartment, having regard to case law. In particular, (i) the extent and frequency of coming and going to and from the apartment by short term renters and servicing staff, (ii) associated concerns for other residents in respect of security and general disturbance, and (iii) the fully commercial nature of the activity,
- the change of use constitutes, therefore, a material change of use and is development as defined in section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, and
- neither the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, nor the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, provide any exemption in respect of such a material change of use:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, as amended, hereby decides that the proposed use of Apartment number 26, Chancery Hall, Blackhall Place, Dublin (a corner building with Ellis Quay), for short-stay accommodation lettings, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 15th day of March 2019
29S.RF.0837
DUBLIN COUNTY BOROUGH
WHEREASa question has arisen as to whether (a) the amalgamation of two separate corner shops with different addresses to form one premises, (b) the erection of a new fascia sign over the amalgamated premises, and (c) the change of use from a grocery shop and a hardware shop to an undertaker’s premises at 84 Ballymun Road and 1 Saint Mobhi Road, Dublin are or are not development or exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act,1963 to 1998:
AND WHEREASthe said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by the Griffith Avenue and District Residents’ Association care of Noirin Finnegan of 32 Saint Mobhi Road, Glasnevin, Dublin on the 23rd day of October, 1997:
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1963 Act,
(b) articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and. Development) Regulations, 1994, with particular reference to Class 1 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to these Regulations, and
(c) the fact that, while the amalgamated premises at this particular location is now used mainly for the display and sale of coffins, headstones, wreaths, Mass cards, flowers, urns, and grave furnishings, the premises is also used for the purpose of receiving notifications of deaths and arranging funerals:
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the said amalgamation of two shops and the erection of a sign involve the carrying out of works which come within the scope section 3 of the 1963 Act,
(b) the said change of use constitutes a material change of use in the context of section 3 of the 1963 Act,
(c) the said amalgamation of the two shops and the said erection of the fascia sign come within the scope of section 4(1) (g) of the 1963 Act,
(d) the said use of the undertaker’s premises involves use for “the direction of funerals”, and such use does not, therefore, come within the meaning of “shop” in article 8 of the 1994 Regulations, and
(e) the said change of use does not come within the scope of article 11 of the 1994 Regulations, with particular reference to Class 1 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to these Regulations:
NOW THEREFOREAn Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that –
(a) the said amalgamation of two shops, erection of a fascia sign, and change of use are development
(b) the said amalgamation of two shop units and the erection of the fascia sign are exempted development, and
(c) the said change of use to use as an undertaker’s premises is not exempted development.
Dated this 20th day of April 1998.
Reference 55/RF/700
DUNDALK URBAN DISTRICT
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of part of a residential property to use as a hackney cab office at 21 Ashdale Park, Bay Estate, Dundalk, County Louth is or is not development or exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála, Dundalk Urban District Council on the 31st day of August, 1994:
AND WHEREAS the said use had commenced prior to the 16th day of May, 1994:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering the reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the 1963 Act, and
(b) articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1977:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the change of use from residential use to use for the operation of a hackney cab business involves the making of a material change in the use of the premises, and
(b) the said change of use does not come within the scope of section 4 of the 1963 Act or articles 10 or 12 of the 1977 Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is development and is not exempted development.
28.RL.2758
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of land as a public car park offering daily and hourly rates, at the rear of numbers 31 and 32 South Terrace, Cork (Protected Structures) is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Cork City Council on the 1st day of July, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) to articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) to Part 4 of the said Regulations,
(d) the planning history of the site,
(e) the nature of the previous use as parking, where spaces are charged on an annual or monthly basis,
(f) the nature of use as parking incidental to the primary use of numbers 31 and 32 South Terrace, and
(g) the nature of use as a public car park offering daily and hourly rates:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the previous use of the land for car parking, where spaces are charged on an annual or monthly basis, is unauthorised development,
(b) the change of use of the land to car parking, with a daily or hourly basis for charging, is likely to generate an increased intensity of use, due to alterations to the level and pattern of traffic, and is therefore a material change of use, which is development,
(c) further, the current use of the land as a public car park represents a new and separate business which has no connection to the primary use of the site and is, therefore, a material change of use,
(d) the level and pattern of traffic resulting from the use as a public car park is materially different from the use as parking incidental to the primary use, and
(e) the said material change of use is development which does not come within the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Acts, 2000-2010 or of the regulations made there under:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of land as a public car park offering daily and hourly rates, at the rear of numbers 31 and 32 South Terrace, Cork constitutes a material change of use and is development and is not exempted development.
Dated December 9, 2010
29S.RL.3490
Dublin City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of a residential apartment for short term holiday lettings at apartment number 1A, 5-5A Crown Alley, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Temple Bar Residents care of Frank McDonald of The Granary, 20 Temple Lane, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 23rd day of May, 2016 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Michael Melinn care of Property Resource Planning Management and Development of 70 Glengarriff Parade, Phibsborough, Dublin referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 20th day of June, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) the following submissions:-
(i) the referrer’s submission to An Bord Pleanála on the 20th day of June, 2016,
(ii) the original referrer’s submission to the planning authority dated the 26th day of April, 2016 and the response to the referrer’s submission to An Bord Pleanála dated the 6th day of July, 2016, and
(iii) the planning authority’s assessment and declaration, and response to the referrer’s submission to An Bord Pleanála dated the 18th day of July, 2016,
(d) the use of the entire apartment on a year round basis for a series of short term holiday lettings,
(e) the absence of any occupation of the apartment, or any portion of the apartment, by any permanent resident,
(f) the High Court decision of Barron J in Thomas McMahon and Others v Right Honourable The Lord Mayor, Alderman and Burgesses of Dublin (High Court 1989 No. 9870P),
(g) the material planning considerations involved with short term holiday lettings use, and
(h) the report of the inspector:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the use of a residential apartment for short-term holiday lettings, as described above, at Apartment 1A, 5 – 5A Crown Alley, Dublin constitutes a change of use,
(b) the change of use to an apartment for short term holiday lettings, as described above, raises planning considerations that are materially different to the planning considerations relating to the permitted use as a residential apartment. In particular, (i) the extent and frequency of coming and going to and from the apartment by short term renters and servicing staff, (ii) associated concerns for other residents in respect of security and general disturbance, and (iii) the fully commercial nature of the activity,
(c) the change of use constitutes, therefore, a material change of use and is development as defined in section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, and
(d) neither the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, or the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, provide any exemption in respect of such a material change of use:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of a residential apartment for short term holiday lettings at apartment number 1A, 5-5A Crown Alley, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 17th day of October 2016.
29S.RL.2262
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of the land for the landing and taking off of a helicopter on the seaward side of Rock Road/Merrion Road, opposite Trimelston Avenue, Dublin is or is not development:
AND WHEREAS Ashcastle Developments Limited care of Tiros Resources Limited of Armitage House, 10 Hatch Street Lower, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on June 8, 2005 stating that the said use was development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Ashcastle Developments Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on July 5, 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala has concluded that—
(a) the said use of the land for the landing and taking off of a helicopter constitutes a material change of use of the land by reference to section 3 of the 2000 Act, and, therefore, comes within the meaning of “development” in this section because—
(i) a change in the use of the subject lands occurs for the time that a helicopter approaches, lands, discharges or picks up passengers and then takes off,
(ii) the sole normal use of the subject lands is open space/recreational amenity,
(iii) the proposed use is not a normal use of the lands at this location,
(iv) the proposed activity would establish a consistent pattern of use that would render the use regular,
(v) the character of the use of the open space lands would be altered in planning terms by the proposed use, and
(vi) the activities associated with the proposed use and the effects of the activities introduce material planning considerations;
(b) the said use of the land does not come within the scope of section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of the land for the landing and taking off of a helicopter on the seaward side of Rock Road/Merrion Road, opposite Trimelston Avenue, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated November 8, 2005
Dated May 10, 2005
28.RL.2221
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has, arisen as to whether a change of use from retail to restaurant use at Unit 50, Wilton Shopping Centre, Wilton, Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS James Byrne of 37 a Browningstown Park, Douglas, Cork requested a declaration on the question from Cork City Council and no declaration issued by the planning authority:
AND WHEREAS the said James Byrne referred the question for decision to An Bord Pleanála on January 25, 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) the definition of “shop” in Article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations,2001,
(c) article 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and the classes of use specified in Part 4 of Schedule 2 to those Regulations, and
(d) the planning history relating to the site.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the proposed change of use from retail to restaurant comes within the scope of the definition of “development” as defined in Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 as it is considered that the change of use of Unit 50 constitutes a material change of use.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (b) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is development and is not exempted development.
Dated June 17, 2005
12.RL.2160
LEITRIM COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of a leisure centre to a nightclub/ functions area at The Landmark Hotel, Carrick-on-Shannon, County Leitrim is or is not development or is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Leitrim County Council on January 5, 2004.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000;
(b) Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001;
(c) Part 4 of Sch.2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, with particular reference to Class 11(e); and
(d) the planning history of development on the site.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the change of use from use as a leisure centre, comprising swimming pools, sauna and steam rooms along with an aerobics/ gymnasium area and ancillary facilities, to use as a nightclub/functions area constitutes a material change of use in the context of s.3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000;
(b) the said change of use does not fall within the scope of any one of the classes of use specified in Pt 4 of Sch.2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001; and
(c) the associated alterations to the structure in question, involving the carrying out of works being related to a change of use not being exempted development, would come within the scope of s.3 of the said Act.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5(4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of a leisure centre to a nightclub/functions area at The Landmark Hotel, Carrick-on-Shannon, County Leitrim is development and is not exempted development.
September 17, 2004.
06S.RL.2111
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the provision of a home delivery service at Apache Pizza, Main Street, Lucan, County Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Westend Foods Limited care of O’Donovan Solicitors of 73 Capel Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from South Dublin County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on October 28, 2003 stating that the said development was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Westend Foods Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on November 24, 2003:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) Articles 5(1), 9(1)(a)(i) and 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) the planning history on the site with particular reference to the permission granted under planning register reference number S96A/0494:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the delivery service for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises contravenes condition number 2 attached to the permission granted under planning register reference number S96A/0494,
(b) the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises constitutes a significant element in the use of the premises, and
(c) the use of the premises for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises constitutes a material change of use of the premises:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said provision of a home delivery service at Apache Pizza, Main Street, Lucan, County Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated April 6, 2004
PL06.RF.10727
FINGAL COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether works carried out at a dwelling at 8 Stockton Park, Castleknock, Dublin is or is not development or exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Marie P. Cooke of 7 Stockton Park, Castleknock, Dublin on March 8, 2002.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to–
(a) sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963; and
(b) condition and limitations for class 1, class 5 and class 7 development as set out in Part I of the Second Schedule of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, as amended by article 2 of the Local Government Planning and Development Regulations 2000.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that–
(a) the rear extension at number 8 Stockton Park constitutes development which is exempted development;
(b) that the raising of the height of the party wall between numbers 7 and 8 Stockton Park to 2.4 metres in height constitutes development which is not exempted development;
(c) that the construction of a front porch at number 8 Stockton Park constitutes development which is exempted development; and
(d) that the assimilation of the front porch into the internal area of the dwelling at number 8 Stockton Park is not a material change of use and does not therefore constitute development
NOW THEREFORE An Bord pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that–
(a) the rear extension at number 8 Stockton Park is exempted development;
(b) the raising of the height of the boundary wall is not exempted development; and
(c) the construction of a front porch at number 8 Stockton Park is exempted development.
Dated January 31, 2003.
06F.RF.1056
FINGAL COUNTY
WHEREASa question has arisen as to whether the increase in size of the public bar area at the Grove Hotel, Grove Road, Malahide, County Dublin is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREASthe said question was referred to An Bord Pleandla by O’Neill Town Planning of Harbour Road, Howth, County Dublin on behalf of Daniel and Mary Cowhie on October 15, 2001.
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4of the Local Government(Planning and Development) Act 1963, and
(b) articles 9 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994.
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the increase in size of the public bar involves the carrying out of works which come within the scope of section 3 of the said 1963 Act,
(b) the change of use from storage/unused areas/ function areas to public lounge bar constitutes a material change of use in the context of section 3 of the said 1963 Act.
(c) the works come within the meaning of section 4(1)(g) of the said 1963 Act and are exempted development, and
(d) the material change of use is development which is not exempted development.
NOW THEREFOREAn Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the increase in size of the public bar area at the Grove Hotel, Grove Road, Malahide, County Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated September 16, 2002.
11.RF.1020
COUNTY LAOIS
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether placing antennae for G.S.M. base station on an existing building at Main Street, Mountrath, County Laois is or is not development or exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Esát Digifone Limited of Digifone House, 76 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin on June 14, 2001.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 3 and 4 of the Local Government Planning and Development Act 1963, and
(b) Articles 9 and 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, with particular reference to class 29 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to these Regulations, as amended by Article 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1997.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that–
(a) the antennae do not constitute an improvement or alteration of an existing structure which come within the meaning of section 4(1)(g) of the 1963 Act, and
(b) the use of the structure as a mobile telephone base station and a chimney as a support structure for antennae, taken together, constitute a material change of use.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said placing of antennae for G.S.M. base station on an existing building at Main Street, Mountrath, County Laois is not exempted development.
Dated January 22, 2002.
706S.RF.0953
COUNTY SOUTH DUBLIN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether (a) the placing of antennae/equipment for G.S.M. base station on existing single storey industrial premises at The Compound, Limekiln Lane, Dublin, and (b) the placing of two cabinets on the said premises at The Compound, Limekiln Lane, Dublin forming part of the telecommunications system are or are not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála under section 5 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 by Esat Digifone Limited of Digifone House, 76 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin on June 21, 2000:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963, and
(b) articles 9 and 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, with particular reference to class 29 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to these Regulations as amended by article 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1997:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that–
(a) the placing of the said antennae/equipment on the said premises to facilitate mobile telephony constitutes works which come within the meaning of “development” in sections 3(i) of the 1963 Act
(b) taken together with the placing of the said antennae, the placing of the equipment cabinet constitutes a material change in the use of the land which also comes within the meaning of “development”
(c) the works involved in the change of use of the land, by reason of the placing of the antennae/ equipment do not come within the scope of section 4(1)(g) of the 1963 Act, or any provision of the regulations made thereunder, and
(d) the works involved in the change of use of the land by the placing of one cabinet is exempted development by reason of the provisions of class 29(g) of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that –
(a) the placing of the said antennae/equipment on the said premises is not exempted development, and
(b) the placing of one of the said cabinets on the said premises is exempted development
Dated January 11, 2001.
63.RF.0965 7
KILLARNEY URBAN DISTRICT
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the relocation of a rubbish compactor within a walled compound at the end of Well Lane South, Killarney, County Kerry is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Cunnane Stratton Reynolds of 79 Merrion Square, Dublin on behalf of Tesco (Ireland) Limited on August 15, 2000:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, and
(b) articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, with particular reference to classes 8 and 10 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to these Regulations:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that (a) works carried out to facilitate the location of a rubbish compactor within a walled compound do not come within the scope of section 4(1)(g) of the 1963 Act and (b) the use of same for the disposal of rubbish not generated within the curtilage results in a material change of use which does not come within the scope of article 11(4) of the Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the relocation of the said rubbish compactor within a walled compound is not exempted development.
Dated April 6, 2001.
23.RF.08187
COUNTY TIPPERARY (SOUTH RIDING)
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of a commercial garage/fuel storage operation for retail sales of diesel oils to customers on the site at Kedra, Cahir, County Tipperary is or is not development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Michael G. Cummins of 83 Main Street, Midleton, County Cork on behalf of the first party, Devereaux Commercials Limited, on the 9th day of May, 1997:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2 and 3 of the 1963 Act,
(b) articles 8 and I 1 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994,
(c) class 5 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Regulations, and
(d) the permissions granted subject to conditions by the planning authority on
(i) the 9th day of September, 1987 under planning register reference number P.3.10872 for the “erection of a garage for commercial and retail use, including the repairs and servicing of commercial vehicles” on part of the existing overall site, and
(ii) the 25th day of January, 1995 under planning register reference number P.3.15910 for “the erection of oil storage tanks, bund and loading gantry”.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the use of the site for the said retail sales constitutes a material change of use from the permitted uses of the site which comes within the scope of section 3(1) of the 1963 Act:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said use of the site for the said retail sales is development.
Dated this 7th day of November 1997
06S.RF.07937
COUNTY SOUTH DUBLIN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of part of a building from offices to a radio broadcasting studio at Firhouse Road, Dublin is or is not development or exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Dan Gallery of 28–30 Rathmines Park Dublin on behalf of Henry and Kathleen Morton on the 29th day of October, 1996:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála. in considering this reference, had regard particularly to —
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1963 Act,
(b) articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, and
(c) the permission for use for office space and other uses granted by Dublin County Council on the 26th day of August, 1987. under Planning Register Reference Number 87A/420:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the said change of use constitutes a material change of use and comes within the scope of section 3(1) of the 1963 Act,
(b) the use as a radio broadcasting studio would not come within the scope of class 2 or class 3 of the Classes of Use in Part IV of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Regulations, and
(c) the change of use to a radio broadcasting studio would not come within the scope of section 4 of the 1963 Act or any provisions of the regulations relating to exempted development made thereunder, and in particular, article 11 of the 1994 Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 27th day of February 1997
55.RF.0747
URBAN DISTRICT OF DUNDALK
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the reuse of premises formerly used as a bar and restaurant, incorporating changes, including combined lounge/restaurant, separate disco, extension of lounge into former restaurant area, burger bar and new doorway at Adelphi Complex, Dundalk, County Louth is or is not development or exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Dundalk Urban District Council on the 20th day of November, 1995:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1963 Act,
(b) articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994,
(c) the grant of permission by An Bord Pleanála under reference PL 55.095711 dated the 24th day of July, 1995 for development comprising change of use from entertainment venue to retail units at Adelphi Complex, and
(d) the grant of permission by An Bord Pleanála under reference PL 55.096103 dated the 3rd day of October, 1995 for the retention of signs and change of front elevation at Adelphi Complex:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) apart from the part of Adelphi Complex which is being developed on foot of planning permission PL 55. 095711, there was no material change in the uses of the remainder of Adelphi Complex which is the subject of this reference compared to the uses established in the 1940s, and that it compared to the uses established in the 1940s, and that it has not been established that there was a clear intention of abandoning the use of the remainder of Adelphi Complex at any stage, and
(b) the works carried out relating to the said remainder of Adelphi Complex (apart from the retention of signs and change of front elevation to which planning permission PL 55.096103 refers) come within the scope of sections 3(1) and 4(1) (g) of the 1963 Act:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that, apart from the parts of Adelphi Complex to which the works and uses to which planning permissions PL 55.095711 and PL 55.096103 refer,-
(a) the use of the remainder of the premises the subject of the reference is not development,
(b) the works done in the remainder of the premises the subject of the reference are development and are exempted development.
06S.RF.0749
SOUTH COUNTY DUBLIN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of a house with shared cooking facilities rented to a group of seven persons at 48 Coolamber Drive, Rathcoole, County Dublin is or is not development or exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Aiden Burke of Church Road, Saggart, County Dublin on the 4th day of December, 1995:
AND WHEREAS the said use commenced prior to the 16th day of May, 1994:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1963 Act, and
(b) articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1977:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the house at 48 Coolamber Drive was in use as a single dwelling prior to 1993,
(b) the room described as “bedroom” on the plans lodged with An Bord Pleanála on the 4th day of December, 1995, located on the ground floor, having independent access to the rear and no direct connection to the rest of the house the contents of which include toilet, shower unit, handbasin and fitted presses, constitutes a separate dwelling unit and involves a material change in the use of 48 Coolamber Drive having regard to section 3 (3) of the 1963 Act,
(c) the nature and extent of the existing use of the other bedrooms (2 at ground floor and 4 at first floor level) as living accommodation constitutes a material change in the use of the house from that of a single dwelling, and
(d) the said change of use does not come within the scope of section 4 of the 1963 Act or article 10 of the 1977 Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the use of a house with shared cooking facilities rented to a group of seven persons at 48 Coolamber Drive is development and is not exempted development
16/RF/707
COUNTY MAYO
WHEREASa question has arisen as to whether the change of use of premises at Mill Street, Swinford, County Mayo from timber store to light engineering workshop is or is not development or exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993:
AND WHEREASthe said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Mayo County Council on the 27th day of October, 1994:
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the 1963 Act,
(b) articles 8 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, and classes 4 and 5 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the regulations,
(c) the planning permission granted by Mayo County Council by order dated the 24th day of July, 1987 under planning register reference number P.87/400 for development comprising an “extension to existing timber store” at Mill Street, Swinford, County Mayo:
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the change of use from storage use to use as a light engineering workshop involves the making of a material change in the use of premises within the meaning of section 3 of the 1963 Act,
(b) the timber store constituted a “repository” within the meaning of article 8 of the 1994 Regulations,
(c) the said change of use does not come within the scope of section 4 of the 1963 Act or article 11 (I) of the 1994 Regulations.
NOW THEREFOREAn Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 21st day of February 1995
ABP-311197-21
South Dublin County Council Planning Register
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of Unit 14, M50 Business Park (Fashion City), Ballymount Road Upper, Dublin, for light industrial use involving computer programming is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Suri Accounts Limited care of David Mulcahy Planning Consultants Limited of 67 Old Mill Race, Athgarvan, Newbridge, County Kildare requested a declaration on this question from South Dublin County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 29th day of July, 2021, stating that the matter was development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Surf Accounts Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanala on the 23rd day of August, 2021:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 2 and 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5, 6 ,9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Classes 4 and 5 of Part 4 of those Regulations,
(d) the planning history of the site,
(e) the information submitted with the referral on the 23rd day of August 2021,
(f) the nature/pattern of development in the area, and
(g) the report of the Inspector:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala has concluded that –
(a) the authorised/established use of Unit 14 M50 Business Park (Fashion City), Ballymount Road Upper, Dublin, is as a warehouse/showroom and as such falls within the scope of Class 5 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(b) the proposed use for light industrial use involving computer programming falls within the scope of Class 4 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of those Regulations, and
(c) the proposed change of use from a Class 5 Warehouse/showroom to a Class 4 light industrial use is a change of use which is material:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanala, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of Unit 14, M50 Business Park (Fashion City), Ballymount Road Upper, Dublin, for light industrial use involving computer programming is development, and is not exempted development. Dated this 29th day of August 2022
ABP-310420-217
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council Planning Register
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the creation of a hardstanding area for the storage of refuse bins at Tullyvale, Valley Drive, Druids Valley, Cherrywood, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Tullyvale Management Company care of Manahan Planners of 38 Dawson Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 6th day of May, 2021 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Tullyvale Management Company referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanala on the 1 st day of June, 2021:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala, in considering this referral, had re1gard particularly to:
(a) sections 2(1 ), 3(1 ), and 4(1 )(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) the planning history of the site,
(c) the pattern of development in the area, and
(d) the existing use of the site.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala has concluded that the construction of a hardstanding area for the storage of refuse bins and the associated change in the use and character of the land from a grassed area previously used as open space to a bin storage area constitutes a material change of use and is, therefore, development as defined in section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and is not exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanala, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the creation of a hardstanding area for the storage of refuse bins at Tullyvale, Valley Drive, Druids Valley, Cherrywood, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 21st day of September 2022
ABP-310374-21
Limerick City and County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of an old shop to a dwelling house at Toghers Shop, Granville Park, Saint Patrick’s Road, Limerick is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Derek Le Gear of 15 Granville Park, Limerick requested a declaration on the said question from Limerick City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 26th day of May, 2021, stating that the matter is development and is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Derek Le Gear referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanala on the 28th day of May, 2021:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a)Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b)Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Regulations 2018,
(c)Classes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(d)the documentation submitted with the file and submissions made by the parties, including the planning authority, and
(e)the pattern of development in the area:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala has concluded that –
(a)the established use of the subject premises is as a shop,
(b)the change of use of the subject structure from shop to residential dwelling is a change of use that is material in planning terms, having regard to different patterns of activity and impacts on the pattern of development in the vicinity, and therefore constitutes a material change of use which is development,
(c)the previous use as a shop is within the scope of Class 1 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(d)the change of use from Class 1 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the said Regulations to residential use would come within the scope of Article 10(6) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended by the Planning and Development (Regulations), 2018:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanala, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that said change of use of an old shop to a dwelling house at Toghers Shop, Granville Park, Saint Patrick’s Road, Limerick is development and is exempted development.
Matters Considered
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated this 24th day of January 2022
ABP-307077-207
Leitrim County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether –
(a) the use of previously incomplete and abandoned apartments, as apartments,
(b) the change of use of previously incomplete and abandoned apartments to use for the reception and care of protected persons, and
(c) the works to complete the previously incomplete and abandoned apartments, in order to use the apartments for the reception and care of protected persons,
at The Rock Centre, Ballinamore, County Leitrim, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Liam Madden of Vitruvius Hibernicus, Convent Road, Longford requested a declaration on the said question from Leitrim County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 31st day of March, 2020 stating the following –
(a) the use of the then incomplete and abandoned apartments for use as apartments is development and is exempted development,
(b) the change of use of the then incomplete and abandoned apartments and partly completed on foot of planning permission 04/1546 to ‘The Reception and Care of those seeking International Protection’ is not development, and
(c) the built works carried out internally and externally at incomplete apartments currently in use as ‘The Reception and Care of those seeking International Protection’ are development and are exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Liam Madden referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 14th day of April, 2020:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2(1), 3(1), 4, 5 and 40 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5(1), 6(1), 9(1) and 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2020,
(c) the planning and development history of the site,
(d) the nature of the current use of the site,
(e) the submissions of the Referrer, and
(f) the report of the Planning Inspector:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the provision of works to complete the apartments, included in the relevant permission and which are either necessary for or ancillary or incidental to the use of the building permitted, come within the scope of section 40 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and do not come within the scope of section 5 of that Act, and
(b) the permitted use of the apartments was not abandoned and the current use of the premises as apartments, and not as a facility for the reception and care of protected persons, does not constitute a change of use from the permitted use and, therefore, does not constitute development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of the premises at The Rock Centre, Ballinamore, County Leitrim as apartments, including residential accommodation for protected persons, is not development.
Dated this 4thday of January 2021
ABP-308540-20
Dublin City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a change of use from residential use to a hostel for homeless accommodation at 15/17 Lower Drumcondra Road, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Anthony Corbett care of Keenan Lynch Architects of 4 Herbert Place, Dublin requested a declaration on this question from Dublin City Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 30th day of September, 2020 stating that the matter is development and is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Anthony Corbett referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 27th day of October, 2020:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
(a) sections 2(1), 3(1), 4(1)(f), 4(1)(h) and 178 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 14 (e) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(d) Class 9 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(e) the definition of ‘care’ as set out in Article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(f) the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022,
(g) the submissions on file, including the planning authority’s response to the Board’s section 132 notice, and
(h) the planning history of the site, the nature of the uses previously and currently on site and the pattern of development in the area:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala has concluded that:
(a) the change of use from residential use to a use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care as defined under Class 9 (a) of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, is a material change of use by reason of providing a different service to a different user group, and is, therefore, development,
(b) the provision of the support described above falls within the scope of ‘care’ as defined at Article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, namely personal care including help with social needs,
(c) the material change of use would not come within the scope of Article 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, as it does not constitute a change of use within any one class,
(d) in the absence of evidence of the application of Policy QH30 and section 16.12 of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022 in considering the proposal to develop and change the use of the premises, the Council in entering into the contract, effected development in the city which contravenes materially the development plan contrary to the provisions of section 178(2), by failing to comply with the specific procedures for such developments, and, therefore, any exemption which might have been available under the provisions of section 4(1)(f) cannot be availed of, and
(e) there are no other exemptions available for the material change of use within existing legislation:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from residential use to a hostel for homeless accommodation at 15/17 Lower Drumcondra Road, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 22ndday of February 2021
ABP-308258-20
Galway City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of a structure from a commercial use to a residential use at rear of 31 Shantalla Road, Galway is or is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS John Lawless care of Planning Consultancy Services of Suite 3, Third Floor, Ross House, Victoria Place, Eyre Square, Galway requested a declaration on this question from Galway City Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 26th day of August, 2020 stating that the matter was development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS John Lawless referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála, on the 22nd day of September 2020:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5, 6, and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Regulations, 2018,
(c) Classes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 of Part 4 to the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(d) the planning history of the subject site including planning permission granted under planning register reference number 250/71 for the erection of a printing workshop and store on the subject premises and in particular planning register reference number P/DC/3/22/18 (An Bord Pleanála reference number ABP-303154-18) whereby it was determined that the authorised use on the site is within Class 4 (light industrial use) of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(e) the documentation submitted with the file,
(f) the submissions made by all parties, including the planning authority,
(g) the report of the Inspector.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) the authorised use of the subject premises, having regard to the planning history of the subject site, is as a printing workshop and store to which planning permission granted under planning register reference number 250/71 relates,
(b) the change of use of the subject structure from printing workshop and store to residential use is a change of use that is material in planning terms, having regard to different patterns of activity, and impacts on the pattern of development in the vicinity, and, therefore, constitutes a material change of use which is development,
(c) the authorised use (as a printing workshop and store), based on the planning history, is not a use within the scope of Classes 1, 2, 3 and 6 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, but is within the scope of Class 4 (that is, use as a light industrial building), and in particular does not represent use for professional or other services under Class 2 of Part 4, and it has not been established that the use authorised under planning permission granted under register reference number 250/71 involved services provided principally to visiting members of the public, as is a requirement of Class 2,
(d) the development in question, not being a change of use from Classes 1, 2, 3 or 6 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to residential use, would not, therefore, come within the scope of Article 10 (6) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended by the Planning and Development (Amendment) Regulations, 2018, and
(e) there are no other provisions in the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, or in the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, whereby such development would be exempted development, and the proposed material change of use in this instance is, therefore, not exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5(3)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, hereby decides that the change of use of a structure from a commercial use to a residential use at rear of 31 Shantalla Road, Galway is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 25thday of January 2021
ABP-307064-20
Clare County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of Westbrook House from a commercial guesthouse to a homeless hostel run by an approved housing body at Westbrook House, Gort Road, Ennis, County Clare is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Maria McCarthy on behalf of Aughanteeroe Residents Association of 27 Aughanteeroe, Ennis, County Clare requested a declaration on the question from Clare County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 18th day of March, 2020 stating that the said matter is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Maria McCarthy of 27 Aughanteeroe, Ennis, County Clare referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 3rd day of April, 2020:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Class 6 and Class 9, of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) The definition of “care” as set out in Article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(d) the planning history of the site, in particular the permission granted under planning register reference number 95/128,
(e) The nature of the current use at the subject site,
(f) The submissions on the file, and
(g) The report of the planning inspector:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the permitted use on site is as a guesthouse and is, therefore, a use coming within the scope of Class 6 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, namely use as a guesthouse;
(b) the current use is as a homeless hostel wherein the approved housing body provides support to the residents. This support is stated to include, ‘supporting them to address any presenting challenges that may inhibit accessing private rental accommodation or transitioning to more permanent solutions’, as recorded in an email correspondence from Clare County Council dated 18th March, 2020, on file;
(c) the provision of the support described above falls within the scope of “care” as defined at Article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, namely ‘personal care, including help with…social needs’;
(d) the current use does not therefore come within the scope of Class 6 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, namely use as a hostel (other than a hostel where care is provided) as the current use includes the provision of care to residents and instead falls within the scope of Class 9 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, namely the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care;
(e) the current use, therefore, constitutes a change of use from the permitted use and which is a material change of use by reason of providing a different service to a different user group;
(f) this material change of use would not come within the scope of Article 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, as it does not constitute a change of use within any one Class;
(g) there are no other exemptions available for this material change of use within existing legislation:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of Westbrook House from a commercial guesthouse to a homeless hostel run by an approved housing body at Westbrook House, Gort Road, Ennis, County Clare is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 25th day of September 2020
ABP-303618-19
Kildare County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of the existing dwelling and ancillary garage as a residence for persons with intellectual or physical or mental illness, and the persons providing care for such persons, with the number of occupants being six and the number of care staff being two, and the conversion of the permitted garage to use as living accommodation associated with the use of the house at The Haven, Timahoe West, Donadea, County Kildare is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Maple Healthcare Limited of The Atrium, Saint John’s Lane, Naas, County Kildare, requested a declaration on this question from Kildare County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 9th day of January 2019 stating that –
(a) the change of use of the existing dwelling as a residence for persons with intellectual or physical or mental illness, and the persons providing care for such persons, with the number of occupants being six and the number of care staff being two, is development and is exempted development, and
(b) the change of use and conversion of the garage to use as living accommodation associated with the use of the house is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Maple Healthcare Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 1st day of February, 2019:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 6 (1) and 9 (1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(c) class 14 (f) of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to those Regulations, and
(d) the planning history of the site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the change of use of the existing dwelling from its former use as a private residence to use for the accommodation of persons with intellectual or physical or mental illness, and the persons providing care for such persons, would represent a change of use, and such change of use would raise issues relevant to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and would, therefore, constitute a material change of use, and is therefore development;
(b) the change of use of the garage to the rear of the site, to use as living accommodation associated with the use of the house, would involve a change of use, which change of use would raise issues relevant to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and would, therefore, constitute a material change of use, and is therefore development, and its conversion would involve the carrying out of works, and would, therefore, constitute development;
(c) the change of use of the existing dwelling from its former use as a private residence to use for the accommodation of persons with intellectual or physical or mental illness, and the persons providing care for such persons, would come within the scope of Class 14 (f) of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and would conform to the conditions and limitations to which this class is subject, and would, therefore, be exempted development;
(d) the change of use of the garage to the rear of the site, to use as living accommodation associated with the use of the house, would generally come within the scope of Class 14 (f) of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, but having regard to the restrictions on exemption set out in Article 9 (1)(a) (i) of these Regulations, this change of use and this conversion would contravene conditions numbers 2 and 3 of planning register reference number 16/1251, and therefore would not be exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that at The Haven, Timahoe West, Donadea, County Kildare –
(a) the change of use of a private residence to a residence for persons with intellectual or physical or mental illness, and the persons providing care for such persons is development and is exempted development, and
(b) the change of use and conversion of an ancillary garage to use as living accommodation associated with the use of the house is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 23rd day of August 2019
ABP-302188-18
Fingal County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the inclusion of hot pizzas for consumption off the site in the range of products sold from the existing supermarket at Costcutter Supermarket, Lusk, County Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the Barry Group and John Wilson care of J. and N. Murphy Limited of Macroom, County Cork requested a declaration on this question from Fingal County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 3rd day of July, 2018 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the Barry Group and John Wilson referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 27th day of July, 2018:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, having regard to the content of the referral, and to the nature of the change of use that has occurred within the site, has reformulated the question as follows:
Whether the change of use of part of the existing convenience shop for the sale of food (pizza) for consumption off the premises at Costcutter Supermarket, Lusk, County Dublin is or is or development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) the definition of “shop” under Article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and Class 1 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to those Regulations,
(d) the planning history of the subject premises, and
(e) the observations of the referrer, of the planning authority and of the inspector in respect of the internal layout of the premises:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the authorised use of these premises is as a shop, as set out in planning permission register reference numbers F95A/0144, F96A/0801, F99A/0408 and F08A/1238,
(b) the change of use of portion of this shop to use for the sale of food (pizza) for consumption off the premises raises material planning considerations, having regard to the operating hours of the pizza area (which are different to those of the main supermarket), and the extensive signage relating to the pizza use, including issues relating to traffic, that the use would operate as a trip generator in and of itself and that it would generate custom independent of the shop and at later hours, raising issues of residential amenity, noise and general disturbance, and would, therefore, be a material change of use, and constitute development, and
(c) on the basis of the documentation submitted with the referral, and the layout of the premises, it is considered that the sale of food (pizza) for consumption off the premises is not subsidiary to the principal shop use, as authorised under the planning permissions referred to above, but represents a separate primary use for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises, located within the overall building containing the shop, and is, therefore, not within the definition of a “shop” as set out in Article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and is not within the ambit of Class 1 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and accordingly the development in question is not exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of part of the existing convenience shop for the sale of food (pizza) for consumption off the premises at Costcutter Supermarket, Lusk, County Dublin is development and is not exempted development. Dated this 20th day of May 2019
ABP-301038-18
Louth County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of rear yard to accommodate bouncy castles for the purposes of Communion, Confirmation and similar functions from 12 p.m. (midday) to 7 p.m. on not more than ten occasions per annum at The Bodhrán Bar, 84 Bridge Street, Dundalk, County Louth is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Rockvalley Taverns Limited care of Tony Donagher of 7 Main Street, Carrickmacross, County Monaghan requested a declaration on this question from Louth County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 1st day of February, 2018 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Cathal Byrne care of Environmental Heritage Planning Services of 154 Riverside Drive, Red Barns Road, Dundalk, County Louth referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 28th day of February, 2018:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
a. Section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended;
b. Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000;
c. Section 4(1)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended;
d. Articles 6 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended;
e. the planning history of the site including planning register reference numbers 15/680 and 16/224;
f. the character and pattern of development in the area, and
g. the submissions on file:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that —
a. the use of the rear yard for accommodating bouncy castles associated with events such as Communions and/or Confirmations or similar events for a limited number of days per year is a change of use;
b. the use of the area in question for accommodating bouncy castles would give rise to an intensification/ increase in floor area associated with the public house which is not considered ancillary to the public house;
c. the use of the area in question would give rise to material planning consequences arising in relation to traffic, noise and general disturbance and accordingly this use constitutes a material change of use in this particular instance, and is, therefore, development;
d. the planning history pertaining to the site which establishes the use of the yard for purposes of storage and means of emergency fire exit and the use of the area for accommodating a bouncy castle is inconsistent with the specified use, and
e. this use does not come within the scope of Class 37 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as the occasions referred to are not considered to be local events:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of rear yard to accommodate bouncy castles for the purposes of Communion, Confirmation and similar functions from 12 p.m. (midday) to 7 p.m. on not more than ten occasions per annum at The Bodhrán Bar, 84 Bridge Street, Dundalk, County Louth is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 21st day of March 2019
ABP-301055-18
Meath County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of the permitted nursing home under planning permission register reference TA/140621 to a residential drug rehabilitation facility at the Old National School, Ballivor Village, County Meath, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Trim Municipal District Council care of Noel French of 10 Kells Road, Trim, County Meath requested a declaration on this question from Meath County Council on the 19th day of February, 2018:
AND WHEREAS Meath County Council referred this question to An Bord Pleanála for decision on the 27th day of February, 2018:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to:
a. Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
b. Article 10 (1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
c. Classes 8 and 9 of Part 4 of the Schedule to the Second Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
d. The planning history of the site and in particular planning permission register reference number TA/140621, and
e. The nature of the subject development, as outlined in planning authority declaration file reference number TA/S51639, which includes the provision of drug rehabilitation therapy.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
a. The permitted use on site is as a nursing home and is, therefore, a class of use coming within the scope of Class 9 (b) of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended;
b. The proposed use, as a residential drug rehabilitation facility, would be a factual change of use from use as a nursing home, and such change of use would raise material planning considerations, including different patterns of traffic and pedestrian activity/movements, a different service to a different user group, including a population with a broader age profile and who are drug dependent, and with limited interaction with the local community, and is, therefore, a material change of use, and is development;
c. This material change of use would generally come within the scope of Article 10 (1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, being a change of use within Class 9 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations, from Class 9 (b) to Class 9 (a), but would be inconsistent with the use included in the planning permission for the nursing home, by reason of the significant differences in the services provided, the age profile of the likely occupants, the greater geographical areas that would be served by the facility and the limited interaction with the local community within this small village, and would, therefore, pursuant to Article 10 (1) (c), not be exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5 (4) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, hereby decides that the change of use of the permitted nursing home under planning permission register reference TA/140621 to a residential drug rehabilitation facility, at the old National School, Ballivor Village, County Meath, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 19th day of November 2018
61.RL.3564
Galway City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a change of use from office use (Class 2) to use as a shop at Tuam Road Retail Centre, Tuam Road, Galway is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS ITC Delta Fund care of O’Neill O’Malley of Technology House, Galway Technology Park, Parkmore, Galway requested a declaration on the said question from Galway City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 24th day of February, 2017 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS ITC Delta Fund referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 22ndday of March, 2017:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(c) section 4(4) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(d) article 6(1) and article 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(e) Class 14(d) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(f) the planning history of the site,
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) permission was granted under Galway City Council planning register reference number 04/926 for a change of use from existing retail warehouse/retail unit to office use,
(b) neither the application documentation submitted in relation to planning register reference number 04/926 or the conditions attached to the grant of permission issued specify that the permitted office use is restricted to Office (Class 3) use only.
(c) the proposed change of use would constitute development in accordance with section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as the proposed change of use would be material,
(d) the proposed change of use would come within the scope of Class 14(d) of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and would, therefore, constitute exempted development, and
(e) the restriction of exemptions set out in Article 9(1)(a) are not applicable in this case. Specifically, the Board does not consider that the proposed development would contravene a condition attached to Galway City Council planning register reference number 04/926 or otherwise be inconsistent with any use specified in any permission granted under the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from office use (Class 2) to use as a shop at Tuam Road Retail Centre, Tuam Road, Galway is development and is exempted development.
Dated this 14th day of May 2018
06F.RL.3557
Fingal County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of room indicated as “study” to use as “bedroom” in four number ground floor apartments in the permitted development under An Bord Pleanála reference number PL06F.246519 at the former Castle Inn, Saint Margaret’s Road, Meakstown, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Greenwich Project Holdings Limited care of AKM Design of Unit 4, Orchard Business Centre, 2009 Orchard Avenue, Citywest Business Campus, Dublin requested a declaration on this question from Fingal County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 22nd day of February 2017 stating that the matter was development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Greenwich Project Holdings Limited Dublin care of AKM Design of Unit 4, Orchard Business Centre, 2009 Orchard Avenue, Citywest Business Campus, Dublin referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 9th day of March 2017:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2(1), 3(1) and 4(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) article 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(c) the development approved under An Bord Pleanála reference number PL06F.246519 (planning register reference number F15A/0552), and
(d) the pattern of development in the area:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the permitted development under An Bord Pleanála reference number PL06F.246519 in respect of this Block was four number ground floor (one bedroom with study) own door family apartments and four number two storey (two bedroom with study) duplex own door family dwellings,
(b) the proposal in respect of which the planning authority’s declaration was made related to the use of the room in each of the ground floor apartments identified in that planning application and permission as “study” to use as a “bedroom”,
(c) the change of use of these rooms from use as a “study” to use as a “bedroom” would be a factual change of use and, without a commensurate increase in the car parking provisions for the development, would constitute a material change of use, having regard to the terms and conditions of the permitted development, due to the greater demand on car parking that would result and the implications for traffic and pedestrian safety in the area, which are material planning issues. The change of use would, therefore, constitute development,
(d) there are no exemptions, set out in the Planning and Development Act and associated Regulations, which could be availed of by which such change of use would be exempted development, and
(e) furthermore, any exemption that might apply would be restricted by reason of article 9(1)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, as the development would contravene the terms of condition number 1 of An Bord Pleanála reference number PL06F.246519, and the use of the room as a bedroom in each case would be inconsistent with the permitted use of the room as “study” in this permission:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, hereby decides that the use of room indicated as “study” to use as “bedroom” in four number ground floor apartments in the permitted development under An Bord Pleanála reference number PL06F.246519 at the former Castle Inn, Saint Margaret’s Road, Meakstown, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
In not accepting the Inspector’s recommendation, the Board was satisfied that, as no new works were involved to these rooms, beyond those already permitted, the provisions of section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, were not relevant, and considered that the question related to a proposal to change of use from the permitted use of the rooms in question (identified on the drawings as “study” in the case of each of the four ground floor duplex units granted under An Bord Pleanála reference number PL06F.246519, and referred to as such in the public notices for that application) to use as “bedroom”. The Board did not agree with the Inspector that this was an issue of intensification of use of the overall residential units, but rather considered that the matter before the Board simply involved a factual change of use from the permitted use to a new use, and that this factual change of use was material for planning purposes in this instance, having regard to the quantum of car parking spaces allocated to the duplex block in that planning permission, and the Board concurred with the view of the planning authority that a shortfall of car parking provision would result, which shortfall would have implications for the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Matters considered
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated this 18th day of December 2017
92.RL.3512
Tipperary County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of a vehicle repair and maintenance workshop garage area to permanent public display and information area for external windows and door samples at Knockgraffon, Cahir, County Tipperary is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Andy Hennessy care of Cummins and Voortman Limited of Ballyline, via Callan, County Tipperary requested a declaration on the said question from Tipperary County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 18th day of October 2016 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Andy Hennessy referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 14th day of November 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
Section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
Section 4(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
Articles 5(1), 6 and 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, and
Parts 1 and 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the proposal involves the change of use from class 4 use as a light industrial building to class 1 use as a shop and there is no relevant provision for exemption under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said changes from commercial vehicle repair/garage/workshop to public display area for external window and door samples at Knockgraffon, Cahir, County Tipperary is development and is not exempted development.
Matters Considered
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated this day 27th of July 2017
09.RL.34867
Kildare County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the proposed change of use of a former car sales premises to use as a shop at Gallowshill, Athy, County Kildare is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Emma Pillion of Fardrum, Athlone, County Westmeath requested a declaration on this question from Kildare County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 24th day of May 2017 stating that the matter was development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Emma Pillion referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 31st day of May 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5, 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, and Class 14 (a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to those Regulations,
(c) the planning history of the site and in particular condition 1 of planning permission register reference number 03/300074,
(d) the existing as built structure on the site in question,
(e) the submissions on file, and
(f) the Inspector’s reports on file, including the details of her inspection of the premises in July 2017, included in her Addendum report dated 10th August 2017.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the proposed change of use of a former car sales premises to use as a shop is a factual change of use and such change of use would raise material planning issues, including impacts on the town centre of Athy and implications in terms of traffic and pedestrian safety, and would, therefore, constitute development within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended;
(b) the proposed change of use pertaining to the former car sales premises would generally come within the scope of the exemption provided in Class 14 (a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, as amended;
(c) however, the existing premises on the site has a larger footprint and a more symmetrical configuration compared to that permitted under planning permission register reference number 03/300074 and the changes from the permitted development are material in nature and would constitute development and would not have been exempted development,
(d) condition number 1 of permission file reference number 03/300074 required the development to be carried out and completed in accordance with the drawings and documentation submitted to the planning authority, and
(e) the exemption that would generally be available under Class 14(a) is, therefore, restricted under the provisions of article 9(1)(a)(i).
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, as amended, hereby decides that the proposed change of use of a former car sales premises to use as a shop at Gallowshill, Athy, County Kildare is development and is not exempted development.
Matters considered
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated the 19th day of January 2018
28.RL.3515
Cork City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of a former retail unit as a coffee shop on the ground floor of 11 Saint Patrick’s Street, Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Mestonway Limited care of John Spain Associates of 39 Fitzwilliam Place, Dublin requested a declaration on this question from Cork City Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 17thday of October, 2016 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Mestonway Limited referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 14thday of November, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2,3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5(1), 6(1) and 10)(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) the previous use of the premises as a shop,
(d) the information submitted on behalf of the site occupier/operator regarding the scale, nature and layout of the coffee shop, including the internal layout thereof, and regarding the nature and range of goods sold on the premises, and
(e) the report of the Inspector, including of his inspection of the subject premises:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the use of the subject premises as a “coffee shop” does not constitute use as a “shop” as defined in Article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, because the range of goods sold, as outlined in the documentation submitted as part of the referral, consists primarily of the sale of sandwiches and other food (including beverages) for consumption off the premises, and is not a subsidiary use to any other retail use, and therefore does not come within the scope of paragraph (d) of Article 5 (1);
(b) the use of the subject premises as a “coffee shop” does not come within the scope of the other elements of the definition of a “shop” as set out under paragraphs (a) – (c) and (e) – (i) of Article 5(1);
(c) the change of use from the former retail use, wherein the primary use was the retail sale of goods, to the subject use as a “coffee shop”, raises issues that are material in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, including issues in relation to the planning policy on retailing set out in the Cork City Development Plan, the potential for litter and management of waste arising from the primary use of the sale of sandwiches and other food for consumption off the premises, and the potential for differing pedestrian and vehicular traffic as compared to the former retail use, and the change of use is, therefore, “development” within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended and
(d) there are no exemptions in the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, or in the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, by which this change of use would constitute exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, hereby decides that the use of a former retail unit as a coffee shop on the ground floor of 11 Saint Patrick’s Street, Cork, is development and is not exempted development.
In not accepting the recommendation of the Inspector that the subject use is not development, the Board had regard to the statutory definition of “shop” as set out in the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and considered that the use that is the subject matter of the referral involves primarily the sale of sandwiches and other food (including beverages) for consumption off the premises, and that such sale is the main retail use, and is not a subsidiary use, and that therefore the use as a “coffee shop” is not within the scope of the definition of a “shop”, as set out in the Regulations. The Board was also satisfied that the change of use from the former retail use to the use as a “coffee shop”, as proposed, raises external matters that are material in planning terms, and that therefore the change of use in this instance constitutes development. In this context, the Board did not consider that the removal of all customer seating and toilet facilities was sufficient to alter the situation, as compared to the Board’s previous decision in respect of the subject premises, under Board referral decision RL3425, dated 2nd March 2016, since that decision referred both to the scale, nature and layout of the coffee shop AND the nature and range of goods sold on the premises.
29S.RL.3495
Dublin City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of 1.16 square metres of shop area at GO Kylemore Service Station for the sale of hot food at GO Kylemore Road Service Station, Kylemore Road, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Bernard Byrne care of Brock McClure Consultants of 63 York Road, Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 7th day of June, 2016 stating that the said matter is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Bernard Byrne referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 30th day of June, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) the definition of ‘shop’ under article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and Part 4 of Schedule 2 of these Regulations, and
(d) the planning history of the site, including planning register number 2685/14, whereby planning permission was granted for the Service Station and associated retail sales area on this site and, in particular, the provisions of condition number 9 of that permission:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the nature and limited scale of the use and its character as an ancillary use to the principal use as a shop,
(b) the sale of hot food for consumption on or off the premises results in a change of use,
(c) the change of use in this case by reason of its limited scale and ancillary nature is not a material change of use, and
(d) the change of use in this case, therefore, is not development as described in section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of 1.16 square metres of shop area for the sale of hot food at GO Kylemore Road Service Station, Kylemore Road, Dublin is not development.
Dated this 28th day of October 2016.
61.RL.3488
Galway City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the proposed mooring of a passenger barge for short term tourist accommodation at Old Mud Dock (Long Walk), Galway Port, Galway is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Captain Sam Field Corbett care of McCarthy Keville O’Sullivan Limited of Block 1, G.F.S.C, Moneenageisha Road, Galway requested a declaration on this question from Galway City Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 12th day of May, 2016 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Captain Sam Field Corbett referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanala for review on the 8th day of June, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála in considering the referral had regard particularly to:
(a) sections 2, 3(1), 3(3), 224 and 225 of the of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) the planning history of the site and its environs, and the provisions of the current Galway City Development Plan,
(c) the scale and nature of the project, and the historical use of the Old Muck Dock as part of Galway Port, and
(d) the provisions of the Local Government Reform Act 2014 and of the County Borough of Galway (Wards) Regulations, 1986, relating to the area of jurisdiction of Galway City Council:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála concluded that:
(a) the location of the subject project, comprising the Old Mud Dock, is within the area of jurisdiction of Galway City Council; and constitutes land as defined in section 2 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) the established and historic use of the Old Mud Dock is for the mooring of ships and other vessels for the purpose of the commercial transfer, unloading and loading of goods,
(c) the proposed use of the Old Mud Dock for the mooring of a passenger barge for the purpose of short term tourist accommodation would represent a change of use from this established use,
(d) having regard to the nature of such use, including times of operation with associated noise and potential disturbance to adjacent residential properties, and the potential for patterns of traffic usage and car parking which would be different to the established use, it is considered that these issues raise external matters that would be material in planning terms, and accordingly the proposed change of use would constitute a material change of use in this particular instance, and would, therefore, constitute development,
(e) furthermore, the proposed use would involve the use of this land for the keeping of an object (a passenger barge) for habitation, which, by reason of the provisions of section 3(3) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, is a material change of use, and would, therefore, constitute development, and
(f) there are no exemptions provided, in the Planning Acts and Regulations, by which such material change of use would constitute exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE, An Bord Pleanála in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act decides that the proposed mooring of a passenger barge for short term tourist accommodation at Old Mud Dock (Long Walk), Galway Port, Galway is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 22 day of November 2016.
20.RL.3551
Roscommon County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the installation of distillery equipment and the change of use from the production of grain and maize products to a whiskey distillery on site at existing mill building at Stewarts Mill (a protected structure), Mocmoyne TD, Boyle, County Roscommon is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Roscommon County Council of Áras an Chontae, Roscommon on the 31st day of May, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2(1), 3(1) and 4(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 6(1), 9(1) and 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 21, Part 1 and Class 4, Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(d) the planning history of the site,
(e) the pattern of development in the area, and
(f) section 57 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the change of use from the production of grain and maize products to a whiskey distillery is considered to differ materially in planning terms owing to:
(i) the nature of the processes and activities involved in the production of distilled spirits, including use of high temperatures and pressure in a liquid-based production process, whereby control of and storage of liquids is required,
(ii) the resource inputs involved in distillation (primarily water requirements) differ significantly from the former use, and
(iii) the residues associated with distillation including requirement for liquid discharges (for example cooling water, liquid and solid residues) and potential for emissions to air, differ significantly from the former use.
(b) the differences outlined above between former and proposed use would require consideration in relation to planning matters such as use of resources, control of emissions and protection of water resources,
(c) it is, therefore, considered that the change of use is a material change of use is, therefore, development,
(d) the change of use from production of grain and maize products to distillery use does not fall within Class 4, Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, because, based on the information provided on the subject file, the Board is not satisfied that either the former or the latter process falls within the definition of light industry in this case, and, therefore, an exemption for the change of use is not available under Article 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(e) based on the information on file, the Board was satisfied that the carrying out of limited works as described would not materially affect the character of the protected structure, or elements of the structure which contribute to its special interest.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said installation of distillery equipment and the change of use from the production of grain and maize products to a whiskey distillery on site at existing mill building at Stewarts Mill (a protected structure), Mocmoyne TD, Boyle, County Roscommon is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 24th day of February 2017.
14.RL.3445
Longford County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether change of use from the former retail warehouse to use as a supermarket for the sale of non-bulky convenience goods at ‘Your Fresh Today Extra’, N4 Axis Centre, Longford is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Seán Keogh of 19 Brookville Estate, North Road, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Longford County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 9th day of December, 2015 stating that the said matter is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Seán Keogh referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 17th day of December, 2015:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála decided to reformulate the question as follows:
“Whether change of use from a former retail warehouse to use as a supermarket for the sale of non-bulky convenience goods including the retail sale of convenience goods directly to members of the public at ‘Your Fresh Today Extra’, N4 Axis Centre, Longford is or is not development or is or is not exempted development”:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to–
(a) section (3)1 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) Articles 5(1), 6(1), 9(1), 10(1), 10(2)(a) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) the planning history of the premises including permission (An Bord Pleanála appeal reference number PL68.126135 and planning register reference number 49/01) and in particular condition number 1 thereof,
(d) the definition of a retail warehouse as set out in Annex 1 of the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government 2000,
(e) the previous determination by the Board in respect of referral number 21.RL.2998 (Home Store and More – referred to An Bord Pleanála by Sligo Chamber of Commerce) and the subsequent decision of the High Court following Judicial Review of the case (Ógalas Limited (trading as Home Store and More) v An Bord Pleanála delivered on 20th March, 2015), and
(f) the documentation on file including the Inspector’s Report:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the permitted use of the premises, as stipulated pursuant to condition number 1 of planning permission granted under An Bord Pleanála appeal reference number PL68.126135, is restricted to Retail warehousing only as defined in the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government 2000,
(b) the retailing activity carried out at the premises includes an element of the retail sale of convenience goods directly to members of the public,
(c) the retail sale of convenience goods does not come within the scope of the definition of activities of a retail warehouse as set out in the said Guidelines,
(d) accordingly, the use of the ‘Your Fresh Today Extra’ unit, constitutes a change of use, and the said change of use constitutes development being a material change of use by reason of the character of the retailing being undertaken and its material external impacts on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area (including its impacts on town centre retailing, traffic movements and parking), and
(e) the said material change of use would be inconsistent with the use specified and included in the planning permission for retail warehousing granted under An Bord Pleanála appeal reference number PL68.126135 which was in accordance with the definition of retail warehouse contained within the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government 2000 and would, thereby, materially contravene condition number 1 attached to the said appeal reference number PL68.126135:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use from a former retail warehouse to use as a supermarket for the sale of non-bulky convenience goods including the retail sale of convenience goods directly to members of the public at ‘Your Fresh Today Extra’, N4 Axis Centre, Longford is development and is not exempted development. In deciding not to accept the Planning Inspector’s recommendation in relation to this referral, the Board had regard to the fact that the use of the premises included an element of retail sale of convenience goods directly to members of the public which use would not come within the scope of the definition of retail warehousing contained within the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment and Local Government 2000 which guidelines were referred to in condition number 1 attached to the Board decision under appeal reference number PL68.126135 which restricted the use of the premises to retail warehouse use only.
Dated 19 May 2016
06S.RL.3420
South Dublin County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether:
(a) the subdivision of Unit 16 into two separate units is or is not development or is or is not exempted development, and
(b) whether a material change of use of part of Unit 16 has occurred where it is used by McMahon Builders Providers,
all at Unit 16 Cherry Orchard Industrial Estate, Ballyfermot, Dublin:
AND WHEREAS McMahon Builders Providers care of Cunnane Stratton Reynolds of Copley Hall, Cotters Street, Cork requested a declaration on this question from South Dublin County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 14th day of September, 2015 stating that:
(a) insufficient details had been submitted in relation to the works carried out to subdivide the unit and therefore a determination could not be made on the matter, and
(b) the change of use of the building as detailed in the documentation submitted would constitute a material change of use which is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS McMahon Builders Providers referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 12th day of October, 2015:
AND WHEREAS, in the light of the documentation submitted with the request and referral, together with the planning authority’s documentation, the Board has decided to reformulate the question as follows:–
(a) whether the subdivision of Unit 16 into two separate units is or is not development or is or is not exempted development;
(b) whether the change of use by McMahon Builders Providers of part of Unit 16 that has taken place is or is not development or is or is not exempted development, and
(c) whether the use of the yard adjacent to Unit 16 for the display of goods for sale is or is not development or is or is not exempted development,
at Unit 16 Cherry Orchard Industrial Estate, Ballyfermot, Dublin:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to:–
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(c) the Classes of Use set out in Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(d) the “Retail Planning – Guidelines for Planning Authorities”, issued by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in April 2012,
(e) relevant case law, including Monaghan County Council v Brogan [1987] IR 333, Treacy v An Bord Pleanála [2010] IEHC 13, and Ogalas Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2014] IEHC 487,
(f) the planning history of the site, and
(g) the report of the Planning Inspector:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:-
(a) the subdivision of Unit 16 into two separate units constitutes development, having regard to the works as outlined in the referral, and this subdivision comes within the scope of section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, and is, therefore, exempted development,
(b) the established use of Unit 16 was as a warehouse, which use would be within the scope of Class 5 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) the use of part of Unit 16 that is being carried out by McMahon Builders Providers includes use for the retail sale of goods. Such use is not, on the basis of the documentation submitted and the inspection carried out by the Board’s Inspector, ancillary to the established use of the subdivided unit as a warehouse, and would come within the scope of Class 1 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the said Regulations. This use for the retail sale of goods would, therefore, constitute a change of use. Furthermore, having regard to its material external impacts, including traffic generation and flows on the road network, and parking within the industrial estate, which impacts would be relevant from the point of view of proper planning and sustainable development, this change of use is materially different from the established use. Consequently, the change of use of part of Unit 16 from its established use to the use now being carried out by McMahon Builders Providers is a material change of use and is, therefore, development,
(d) the material change of use that has taken place in the subdivided part of Unit 16, involves a change between two of the Classes of Use set out in Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Regulations and is not exempted development,
(e) the established use of the open yard adjacent to Unit 16 is for the parking and manoeuvring of vehicles. The use of this yard for the display of goods for sale is a separate use, which use, by virtue of the definition in section 3(2)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 constitutes a material change of use, and is, therefore, development. There are no exemptions provided for in the Act or Regulations made thereunder by which such material change of use would be exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, hereby decides that:
(a) the subdivision of Unit 16 is development and is exempted development,
(b) the change of use by McMahon Builders Providers of part of Unit 16 that has taken place is development and is not exempted development, and
(c) the use of the yard adjacent to Unit 16 for the display of goods for sale is development and is not exempted development,
at Unit 16 Cherry Orchard Industrial Estate, Ballyfermot, Dublin.
Dated 23 February 2016
27.RL.3404
Wicklow County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether use of an agricultural building known as “Arthur’s Barn” and associated lands used occasionally for small scale events at Belmont Demesne, Templecarrig Road, Bray, County Wicklow is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS David Brabazon care of Auveen Byrne and Associates of Lioscarran House, 32 Dale Road, Kilmacud, Stillorgan, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Wicklow County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 21st day of August, 2015 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said David Brabazon referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 17th day of September, 2015:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) articles 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 37 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(d) condition number 2 of planning register reference number 10/2636, and
(e) the planning history of the site, and the documentation submitted with the referral:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the use of an agricultural building known as “Arthur’s Barn” and associated lands used occasionally for small scale events as listed in the referral constitutes a change of use from the existing agricultural use, and this change of use is considered to be a material change of use and, therefore, constitutes development in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, and
(b) having regard to the nature of the uses detailed in the referral, while it is considered that a number of these uses would come within the scope of Class 37 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, nevertheless, the said use of the agricultural building known as “Arthur’s Barn” and associated lands used occasionally for small scale events, would contravene condition number 2 attached to planning register reference number 10/2636. The restrictions on exemptions provided for under Article 9 (1)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, apply:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that use of an agricultural building known as “Arthur’s Barn” and associated lands used occasionally for small scale events at Belmont Demesne, Templecarrig Road, Bray, County Wicklow is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 1st day of February 2016.
Dublin City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the removal of a first floor apartment and amendments to second apartment at first floor level to allow for double height bar at 45-47 Temple Bar, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Temple Inns Limited care of Tom Phillips and Associates of 2-3 Roger’s Lane, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 24thday of September, 2014 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Temple Inns Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 26th day of September, 2014:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3(1), 4(1)(h) and 57(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and
(b) Article 10(1) and Part 4 of the Second Schedule of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that
(a) the physical works proposed constitute development and that these works would be exempted development under section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, however
(b) the works proposed, notwithstanding the fact that the overall floorspace of the structure would be reduced and no change of retained floorspace is proposed, the physical works would result in space at first floor level within the structure changing from residential use to public house use and the reduction of the number of apartments at first floor level from 2 to 1, such that a change of use would occur which is considered to be a material change of use, and
(c) such a material change of use would constitute development under section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 for which no exemption is provided for under the said Act or the Planning and Development Regulations 2001:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said removal of a first floor apartment and amendments to second apartment at first floor level to allow for double height bar at 45-47 Temple Bar, Dublin is development and is not exempted development. Dated this 4 February 2015.
28.RL3226
Cork City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from the former convent and hospital/hospice to use as a residential college by Griffith College Cork at Saint Patrick’s Hospital/Marymount Hospice, Marymount, Wellington Road,Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Griffith College Cork care of Manahan Planning of 38 Dawson Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Cork City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 7th day of May, 2014, stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Griffith College Cork referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 30th day of May, 2014:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2(1) and 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) Classes 7 and 9 of Part 4, Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the proposed change of use of buildings, formerly used as a convent, to residential college use, would constitute a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use and is, therefore, development and not exempted development,
(b) the proposed change of use of buildings, formerly used as hospital/hospice to residential college use, would constitute a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use, but would be exempted development by reference to Class 9 of Part 4, Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(b) the said change of use proposed constitutes a material change of use which would not be exempted development, by reference to the quantum of residential use proposed (based on the referrers estimated 10-20% of the overall student population). The change of use, as outlined in the documents referred would not constitute a residential college use, and is considered to be in the nature of a third level educational use with ancillary residential accommodation provided, and
(d) the Board is not satisfied, on the basis of the information submitted with the referral, that the works envisaged by the referrer to implement the said change of use would consist of works that are solely exempted development in view of the status of the subject buildings as Protected Structures.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, hereby decides that the said change of use of the former convent and hospital/hospice use known as Saint Patrick’s Hospital/Marymount Hospice to a residential college use by Griffith College Cork is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 9 February 2015.
61.RL.3315
Galway City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the partial change of use of a shop to use as a coffee shop at ground floor level at number 4 Quay Street, Galway, a Protected Structure, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Oberon Design Limited care of James O’Donnell of Gray Office Park, Galway Retail Park, Headford Road, Galway requested a declaration on the said question from Galway City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 20thday of October, 2014 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Oberon Design Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 5th day of November, 2014:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála re-phrased the question in the light of information submitted to –
(a) whether internal works to a protected structure is or is not development or is or is not exempted development, and
(b) whether the partial change of use of a shop at ground floor level to use as a coffee shop is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) section 57 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(c) the definition of ‘shop’ as defined in Article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(d) the status of the building as a protected structure,
(e) the use of the site as a retail unit, and
(f) the nature of the proposed coffee shop:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the proposal involves works to the interior of a Protected Structure which is development within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) the said works being works which would not materially affect the character of the structure or any element of the structure which contributes to its special architectural interests are exempted development within the meaning of section 57 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(c) the existing use of the premises for the retail sale of goods and for the display of goods for sale, is a shop as defined under Article 5(1) of Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 as amended by article 3 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2005 and the partial use of the premises (2.1 square metres) as a coffee shop comes within the scope of the definition of ‘shop’ and therefore does not constitute a material change of use from use as a shop:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the:
(a) internal works to a protected structure is development and is exempted development, and
(b) the partial change of use of a shop to use as a coffee shop at ground floor level is not development,
at number 4 Quay Street, Galway, a Protected
Structure.
Dated this 10 March 2015.
06F.RL.3092
Fingal County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of existing heavy vehicles storage yard to use as storage for containers holding domestic items at Ballymadrough, Donabate, County Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Brendan O’Neill care of Brendan Grimes of The Oaks, Milverton, Skerries, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Fingal County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 7th day of March, 2013 stating that the said matter is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Brendan O’Neill referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 2nd day of April, 2013:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and
(b) article 10(1)(b) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) case law,
(d) the nature of the proposed use of the site,
(e) nature of the authorised use of the site and the conditions attached to the permission for the said use granted under planning register reference number 91A/1541, in particular condition number 1(b), and
(f) the reason for the said condition which refers to planning considerations for the imposition of the said condition
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that
(a) the proposed use of the site for the provision of domestic storage facilities within containers would constitute a factual change to the authorised use of the site for the storage of heavy vehicles,
(b) such change is considered to be a material change of use having regard to condition number 1(b) of the permission granted under planning register reference number 91A/1541 which stipulates that “the site shall not be used for any other purpose except the storage of heavy vehicles…”.
(c) the proposed use is, therefore, development within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(d) the development would contravene a condition attached to the permission authorising the existing use, and is, therefore, not exempted development pursuant to Article 10(1)(b) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by sections 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of existing heavy vehicles storage yard to use as storage for containers holding domestic items at Ballymadrough, Donabate, County Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated July 29, 2013.
06F.RL.3093
Fingal County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to
(i) whether house sharing, internal alterations and replacement of window with door on the east facing elevation is a material change of use, and
(ii) whether the internal alterations to the dwelling, for such use, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development at 76 Park Avenue, Castleknock, Dublin:
AND WHEREAS Mary McGuire of 76 Park Avenue, Castleknock, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Fingal County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 7th day of March, 2013 stating that the said matter is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Mary Maguire referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 3rd day of April, 2013:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 6(1) and 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(c) Class 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations, and the Conditions and Limitations in these classes:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that
(a) the house sharing, including internal alterations, providing for a “self-contained unit”, including the side door, constitutes development, as defined,
(b) the internal alterations have been so designed that it could be used as a separate “self-contained unit” to the host dwelling. It therefore does not comply with section 3(3) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(c) no provision is made in the said Act or Regulations made thereunder, by which the said internal alterations would constitute exempted development, and
(d) the internal alterations to the dwelling, of itself, comes within the scope of Section 4(1 (h) of the said Act:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that
(a) change of use of this dwelling to provide a “self-contained unit” and replacement of window with door on the east facing elevation constitutes development and is not exempted development, and
(b) the internal alterations to the dwelling are exempted development at 76 Park Avenue, Castleknock, Dublin. Dated August 23, 2013.
84.RL.3096
Westport Town
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from a garage and showrooms to use as a shop at Hastings Garage, The Fairgreen, Westport, County Mayo is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Tim and Maria Hastings care of John Lambe Architectural and Engineering Services Limited of Quay Street, Westport, County Mayo requested a declaration on the said question from Westport Town Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 20th day of March, 2013 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Tim and Maria Hastings referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 16th day of April, 2013:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 14(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and to Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) the location and layout of the premises, and
(e) the planning history and permitted uses on the site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the permitted use of the site is for the sale or leasing, or display for sale or leasing of motor vehicles,
(b) the change of use to use as a shop is a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use and constitutes development within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(c) the said change of use to use as a shop is not subject to any of the restrictions on exemption set out at Article 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(d) the said change of use to use as a shop comes within the exempted development provisions of Class 14(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the said Regulations, and
(e) the development is not affected by the provisions of section 4(4) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended by section 17(1 )(b) of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 2011 in respect of environmental impact assessment or appropriate assessment:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from a garage and showrooms to use for the sale or leasing, or display for sale or leasing of motor vehicles to use as a shop at Hastings Garage, The Fairgreen, Altamont Street, Westport, County Mayo is development and is exempted development.
In deciding not to accept the Inspector’s recommendation to find that the development was development but not exempted development, the Board considered that the proposal did not endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard and obstruction of road users and that therefore its exemption was not removed by Article 9(1) (a)(iii) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended.
Dated November 18, 2013.
06D.RL.3073
Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from a secondary school to a primary school and secondary school at Saint Tiernan’s Community School, Parkvale, Sandyford Road, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Parkvale Residents Association care of Archictectural Consultants Limited of 30 Dalkey Park, Dalkey, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dun Laoghaire- Rathdown County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 15th day of January, 2013 stating that the said matter is not development:
AND WHEREAS the said Parkvale Residents Association referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 5th day of February, 2013:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended;
(b) article 5(i) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, in relation to the definition of a school:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that
(a) the established use of the structure on site is a school;
(b) there are no adverse impacts in terms of traffic safety and no other material impacts arising from the proposed use of part of the secondary school as a primary school; and
(c) there is no material change of use from a secondary school contained within the existing school structure.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, as amended, hereby decides that the change of use from a secondary school to a primary and secondary school is not development at Saint Tiernan’s Community School, Parkvale, Sandyford Road, Dublin.
Dated June 13, 2013.
31.RL.3056
WATERFORD CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a change of use of Unit 7A from its last permitted use as a commercial bank to retail use and the use of the proposed retail floor space to be used in conjunction with four adjoining retail shop units as a single shop at Waterford Shopping Centre, Lisduggan, Waterford is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Edward Acheson and Elizabeth Acheson care of Kenny Stephenson Chapman of Park House, Park Road, Waterford requested a declaration on the said question from Waterford City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 28th day of September, 2012 stating that the said matter is development and is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Edward Acheson and Elizabeth Acheson referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 25th day of October, 2012:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, 110
(b) Articles 5, 6, 9(a)(i) and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Classes 1 and 2 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the said Regulations,
(d) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, as amended,
(e) Articles 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 (Exempted Development) Regulations, 1967, as amended,
(f) Classes 1 and 2 of Part IV of the Schedule of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 (Exempted Development) Regulations, 1967, as amended,
(g) Articles 11 and 12 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1977,
(h) Classes 1 and 2 of Part IV of the Third Schedule of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1977, and
(i) the planning history of the site, and in particular condition number 4 attached to An Bord Pleanála appeal reference number PL 31.215125, planning register reference number 05/217:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that
(a) Unit 7A of Waterford Shopping Centre has a permitted use as a bank as part of the larger original Unit 7,
(b) permitted use as a bank to retail use constitutes a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use,
(c) change of use from a commercial bank to shop would generally come within Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(d) this exemption is however, removed by way of condition number 4 attached to planning permission granted under An Bord Pleanála appeal reference number PL 31.215125, planning register reference number 05/217 pursuant to Article 9 of the said Regulations,
(e) the original Unit 7 constituted a planning unit within the overall shopping centre and was subdivided on its southeast side from the adjoining units by means of a wall,
(f) the amalgamation of four units into one unit to be used in conjunction with unit 7A involve works of construction that would constitute development as defined under Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(g) the carrying out of such works for the amalgamation of these permitted individual units would not come within the scope of section 4(1)(h) of the 2000 Act, in that they did not involve works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of a structure, but rather of a group of individual permitted units,
(h) the amalgamation of the permitted smaller retail units into a larger unit constitutes a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use, having regard to the character and material external impacts of the larger units (such as their possible impact on the pattern of retailing in the wider geographical area, and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area), and
(i) the material change of use in the amalgamation of permitted units into a single larger unit would, by reason of article 10(1) of the said Regulations, not be exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of Unit 7A from its last permitted use as a commercial bank to retail use and for the proposed retail floor space to be used in conjunction with four adjoining retail shop units as a single shop at Waterford Shopping Centre, Lisduggan, Waterford is development and is not exempted development.
Dated May 1, 2013.
04.RL.3049
CORK COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the extension of an area of land for the established use for the parking of motor vehicles and open storage of motor vehicles at Airport Lodge, Rathmacullig, County Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Corduff Investments care of Cunnane Stratton Reynolds of Copley Hall, Cotters Street, Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Cork County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 27th day of August, 2012, stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Corduff Investments referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 21st day of September, 2012:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 6 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(c) the planning history of the site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the permitted use of the land as permitted under planning authority register reference number 94/706 is as a restaurant and that any car parking is ancillary to this use,
(b) the use of the site is that of a commercial car park independent of the permitted restaurant use and, furthermore is a change of use which is materially different to the permitted use by reason of the different functions served, the level of car parking on the site and the nature and volume of traffic movements, and is therefore, development, and
(c) the use of the site as a commercial car park constitutes a material change of use of the land, and therefore cannot avail of the exempted development provisions of section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended or the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the extension of an area of land for the established use for the parking of motor vehicles and open storage of motor vehicles at Airport Lodge, Rathmacullig, County Cork constitutes a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use and is development and is not exempted development.
Dated May 29, 2013.
86.RL.3032
WICKLOW TOWN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether:
(a) the amalgamation of the two units numbers 5 and 6 into one unit, and
(b) the change of use of the said two units into temporary accommodation for homeless persons at 5 and 6 Kilmantin Hill, Wicklow Town, County Wicklow are or are not development or are or are not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Wicklow Town Council of Town Hall, Wicklow Town, County Wicklow on the 31st day of July, 2012:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5, 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) the planning history of the site,
(d) the use of as a hostel for persons seeking refugee status from 2001 to 2009, and
(e) the submissions received in respect of this referral:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the amalgamation of the two units into one unit constitutes development as defined,
(b) the use of the site as a hostel for persons seeking refugee status was not authorised,
(c) the proposed use as temporary accommodation for homeless persons constitutes a hostel where care is provided, and
(d) the change of use in question is considered to be a material change of use and constitutes development, as defined:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that:
(a) the said amalgamation of the two units numbers 5 and 6 into one unit, and
(b) the said change of use of the two units into temporary accommodation for homeless persons, which constitutes a material change of use, at 5 and 6 Kilmantin Hill, Wicklow Town, County Wicklow are development and are not exempted development.
Dated March 28, 2013.
29S.RL.2990
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the single storey extension to the rear of the house incorporating and increasing the height of the boundary wall to approximately four metres at 7 Haroldville Avenue, Rialto, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Brian Ebrill of 6 Haroldville Avenue, Rialto, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 20th day of February, 2012 stating that the said matter is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Brian Ebrill referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 16th day of March, 2012:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5(1), 6(1), 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 1 and Class 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(d) the planning history of the site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) there is an existing timber sheeted children’s playhouse in the rear garden provided under Class 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 which does not comprise private open space,
(b) the area of private open space to the rear of the house does not satisfy Condition and Limitation number 5 under Column 2 of Class 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 which requires that the construction or erection of the extension to the rear of the house shall not reduce the area of private open space, reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house, to the rear of the house to less than 25 square metres,
(c) the tilt and turn window situated on the first floor of the rear elevation would not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures and, therefore, would be exempted development under section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the single storey extension to the rear of the house incorporating and increasing the height of the boundary wall to approximately four metres at 7 Haroldville Avenue, Rialto, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated February 27, 2013
28.RL.3010
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from permitted office space to private members club at Clarkes Bridge House, 4-5 Wandesford Street, Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Kevin Killeen on behalf of the Bank Casino Car Club of Clarkes Bridge House, 4-5 Wandesford Street, Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Cork City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 16th day of May, 2012 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Kevin Killeen referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 8th day of June, 2012:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the said Regulations,
(d) the nature and extent of use as a private members club, and
(d) the planning history of the site and the development permitted under planning register reference number T.P. 06/31053:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the change of use from permitted office space to private members club is a material change of use and is development,
(b) the change of use does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, or the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, made under section 4(2), and
(c) the change of use would be inconsistent with the use specified in the previous permission granted under planning register reference number T.P. 06/31053 and would contravene condition number 1 of that permission.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from permitted office space to private members club at Clarkes Bridge House, 4-5 Wandesford Street, Cork is development and is not exempted development.
Dated March 5, 2013
29S.RL.2990
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the single storey extension to the rear of the house incorporating and increasing the height of the boundary wall to approximately four metres at 7 Haroldville Avenue, Rialto, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Brian Ebrill of 6 Haroldville Avenue, Rialto, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 20th day of February, 2012 stating that the said matter is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Brian Ebrill referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 16th day of March, 2012:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 3(1) and 4(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5(1), 6(1), 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 1 and Class 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(d) the planning history of the site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) there is an existing timber sheeted children’s playhouse in the rear garden provided under Class 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 which does not comprise private open space,
(b) the area of private open space to the rear of the house does not satisfy Condition and Limitation number 5 under Column 2 of Class 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 which requires that the construction or erection of the extension to the rear of the house shall not reduce the area of private open space, reserved exclusively for the use of the occupants of the house, to the rear of the house to less than 25 square metres,
(c) the tilt and turn window situated on the first floor of the rear elevation would not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures and, therefore, would be exempted development under section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the single storey extension to the rear of the house incorporating and increasing the height of the boundary wall to approximately four metres at 7 Haroldville Avenue, Rialto, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated February 27, 2013
28.RL.3010
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from permitted office space to private members club at Clarkes Bridge House, 4-5 Wandesford Street, Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Kevin Killeen on behalf of the Bank Casino Car Club of Clarkes Bridge House, 4-5 Wandesford Street, Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Cork City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 16th day of May, 2012 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Kevin Killeen referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 8th day of June, 2012:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the said Regulations,
(d) the nature and extent of use as a private members club, and
(d) the planning history of the site and the development permitted under planning register reference number T.P. 06/31053:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the change of use from permitted office space to private members club is a material change of use and is development,
(b) the change of use does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, or the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, made under section 4(2), and
(c) the change of use would be inconsistent with the use specified in the previous permission granted under planning register reference number T.P. 06/31053 and would contravene condition number 1 of that permission.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from permitted office space to private members club at Clarkes Bridge House, 4-5 Wandesford Street, Cork is development and is not exempted development.
Dated March 5, 2013
20.RL.2923
ROSCOMMON COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to 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:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Roscommon County Council on the 8th day of September, 2011:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a)Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b)Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c)Class 14(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d)Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations, and
(e)the planning history of the site, with particular reference to planning register reference numbers PD 97/229 and PD 01/97:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the said use is a change of use, is material as the use of the premises has changed from class 4, use as a light industrial building, to class 1, a shop, and, therefore, constitutes development within the meaning of Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, and the said change of use does not come within the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of an industrial premises to a retail discount store at Roxboro Discount Store, Roxborough, County Roscommon is development and is not exempted development.
Dated September 10, 2012
22.RL.2906
NORTH TIPPERARY COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of a premises from permitted use as a supermarket to use as a supermarket to include the sale of intoxicating liquor other than wine at east of Main Street, south of Lourdes Road and north of Castle Street, Roscrea, County Tipperary is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Babette Limited care of GVA Planning and Regeneration Limited of 2nd Floor, Seagrave House, 19-20 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from North Tipperary County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 17th day of June, 2011 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Babette Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 14th day of July, 2011:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a)sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b)articles 5 and 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001-2011,
(c)the existing permission granted under An Bord Pleanála reference PL22.231971 for a commercial development on this site, and
(d)the submissions made in connection with the referral:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—(a) a supermarket can be considered as a ‘shop’ for the purposes of determining the referral in hand, (b) the definition of “shop” as set out in article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (as amended by article 3 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2005) does not include a use associated with the sale of intoxicating liquor other than wine as set out in (d) of article 5, (c) the change of use from shop to shop to include the sale of intoxicating liquor other than wine constitutes a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use and is, therefore, development, (d) the change of use in the instant case includes the sale of intoxicating liquor other than wine, and (e) accordingly, no exemptions apply:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of a premises from supermarket use as a supermarket to include the sale of intoxicating liquor other than wine at east of Main Street, south of Lourdes Road and north of Castle Street, Roscrea, County Tipperary is development and is not exempted evelopment.
Dated November 22, 2011
04.RL.2890
CORK COUNTY
Planning Authority Reference Number: D.212/11
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of an agricultural shed to store organic biosolids and the mixing of this material with lime at Killavullen, Mallow, County Cork is or is not development and is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Cork County Council on the 16th day of June, 2011:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended),
(b) section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(c) section 4(1)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(d) Article 6(3) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001-2011,
(e) Article 9(1)(a)(i) of the said Regulations,
(f) Classes 6 and 9 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations, and
(g) the planning history of the site, in particular, condition number 3 of planning register reference number 08/10165:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) sludge from a municipal wastewater treatment plant is a waste by-product,
(b) the change of use of sheds for agricultural use to use for the storage of such a waste by-product imported from municipal wastewater treatment plant constitutes a material change of use and is, therefore, development,
(c) the mixing of sewage sludge with lime in the agricultural building comprises the processing of waste material, which is a material change of use of the building, and
(c) the said development does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of section 4 of the Planning and
(c) the said development does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) and the regulations made thereunder:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of an agricultural shed to store organic biosolids and the mixing of this material with lime at Killavullen, Mallow, County Cork is development and is not exempted development. Dated September 29, 2011
14.RL.2823
LONGFORD COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a change of use from medical centre to use as a pharmacy at Units 5 to 9, Block B, Ballyminion, Farranyoogan, Longford is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Luke Baxter care of Liam Madden of Convent Road, Longford requested a declaration on the question from Longford County Council on the 22nd day of October, 2010 and a declaration issued by the planning authority on the 18th day of November, 2010 stating that said matter is not considered exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Luke Baxter referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 7th day of December, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to:
(a) section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000;
(b) Articles 5(1), 9(1) and 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (as amended);
(c) Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations;
(d) Classes 2 and 8 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations;
(e) the submissions on file and
(f) the planning history of the site.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) use as a pharmacy constitutes use as a “shop”
(b) use as a “shop” is a class of use which comes within the scope of Class 1 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (as amended),
(c) use as a “medical centre” comes within the scope of Class 8 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (as amended),
(d) a change of use from “medical centre” to use as a “shop”, including as a pharmacy, is a material change of use and is development within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and
(e) the said material change of use from “medical centre” to use as a “shop”, including a pharmacy, does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2010, or of the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (as amended), and is, therefore, not exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5(3)(b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, hereby decides that a change of use from “medical centre” to use as a pharmacy, all at units 5 to 9, Block B, Ballyminion, Farranyoogan, Longford, is not exempted development.
Dated April 20, 2011
#
29S.RL.2794
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of a premises from permitted use as a public house and off-licence to use as a shop to include the sale of intoxicating liquor other than wine at 130 Pearse Street, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Valmonn Limited care of John Spain Associates of 10 Lower Mount Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 14th day of September, 2010 stating that the said use is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Valmonn Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 11th day of October, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5 and 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) class 14(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) the submissions made in connection with the referral and,
(e) the existing permission granted under planning register reference number 0881/03 for use of the unit as a public house and off-licence:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the change of use from a public house and off-licence to use as a shop to include the sale of intoxicating liquor other than wine constitutes a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use and is, therefore, development,
(b) the change of use from a public house and off-licence to a shop would come generally within the scope of the exempted development provisions of class 14(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) however, the change of use in the instant case includes the sale of intoxicating liquor other than wine, and
(d) the definition of “shop” as set out in article 5(1) of the 2001 Regulations (as amended by article 3 of the Planning and Development, Regulations, 2005) does not include a use associated with the sale of intoxicating liquor other than wine, and,
(e) therefore, the said change of use from public house and off-licence to shop cannot avail of the exempted development provisions of the said Class 14(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and is not exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of a premises from permitted use as a public house and off-licence to use as a shop to include the sale of intoxicating liquor other than wine at 130 Pearse Street, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated May 5, 2011
29N.RL.2830
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the removal of internal walls, the closure of the public entrance from the street and a change of use from off-licence to shop or vice versa at number 18 Fairview Strand, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Tesco Ireland Limited care of GVA Planning and Regeneration Limited of Second Floor, Seagrave House, 19-20 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 29th day of November, 2010 stating that the said changes are exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Tesco Ireland Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 17th day of December, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) the planning history of the site, and
(c) condition number 1 of planning register reference numbers 5873/06 and 2816/10:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) condition number 1 of planning register reference numbers 5873/06 and 2816/10 is a standard condition requiring the implementation of a development, in the first instance, in accordance with the application particulars. It does not remove subsequent exempted development rights or entitlements,
(b) the premises at number 18 Fairview Strand is an established single shop unit,
(c) the removal of internal walls does not constitute the amalgamation of formerly separate retail units but relates solely to an internal reconfiguration of floorspace within a single shop unit. The works constitute development and come within the scope of section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and
(d) the closure of the public entrance (the secondary entrance to the shop) constitutes development and comes within the scope of section (4)(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the removal of internal walls and the closure of a public entrance at number 18 Fairview Strand, Dublin is development and is exempted development. As number 18 Fairview Strand is a single shop unit, the issue of change of use as raised in the referral does not arise. The Board, therefore, has not made any decision in this matter.
Dated May 6, 2011
14.RL.2797
LONGFORD COUNTY
Planning Authority Reference Number: DC 10/5
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to –
(1) whether a change of use from “specialist consulting suites”, meaning suites for the provision of medical or health services, to use as a “shop” is or is not exempted development, and
(2) whether a change of use from “specialist consulting suites”, meaning use for the provision of:
(a) financial services,
(b) professional services (other than health or medical services),
(c) any other services (including as a betting office),
where services are provided principally to visiting members of the public, to use as a “shop” is or is not exempted development, all at Units 2 and 3 Ballyminnion, Farranyoogan, Longford:
AND WHEREAS Liam Madden care of Vitruvius Hibernicus Limited of Convent Road, Longford requested a declaration on the question from Longford County Council and no declaration issued by the planning authority:
AND WHEREAS the said Liam Madden referred the question for decision to An Bord Pleanála on the 4th day of October, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) articles 5(1), 9(1) and 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended.
(c) Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) Classes 2 and 8 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(e) the submission made by the referrer, and
(f) the planning history of the site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(1)
(a) use as a “shop” is a class of use which comes within the scope of Class 1 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(b) use as “specialist consulting suites”, for the provision of medical or health services is a class of use which comes within the scope of Class 8 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(c) a change of use from “specialist consulting suites” for the provision of medical or health services to use as a “shop”, is a change of use, which is a material change of use and is development within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and
(d) the said material change of use from “specialist consulting suites” for the provision of medical or health services to use as a “shop”, does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Acts. 2000-2010 or of the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and is, therefore, not exempted development:
(2)
(a) Use as “specialist consulting suites”, meaning use for the provision of:
(a) financial services,
(b) professional services (other than health or medical services),
(c) any other services (including as a betting office), where services are provided principally to visiting members of the public, is a class of use which comes within the scope of Class 2 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(b) a change of use from Class 2 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations, to use as a shop (Class 1 of the said Part 4) is a change of use which is a material change of use which is development within the meaning of Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(c) the said material change of use from Class 2 to Class 1 comes within the exempted development provisions of Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and is, therefore, exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (b) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that
(1) the change of use from “specialist consulting suites”, meaning suites for the provision of medical or health services, to use as a “shop” is not exempted development, and
(2) the change of use from “specialist consulting suites”, meaning use for the provision of:
(a) financial services,
(b) professional services (other than health or medical services),
(c) any other services (including as a betting office), where services are provided principally to visiting members of the public, to use as a “shop” is exempted development, all at Units 2 and 3 Ballyminnion, Farranyoogan, Longford.
Dated February 24, 2011
28.RL.2692
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the charging for parking after a specific two-hour stay within the existing underground car park which serves the City Square development at 48-52 Watercourse Road, Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Frinailla Development Limited care of McCutcheon Mulcahy of 6, Joyce House, Barrack Square, Ballincollig, County Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Cork City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 27th day of November, 2009 stating that whereas the charge for car parking does not in itself constitute development, the change of use of the car park, from use by residents and patrons of the City Square development to use by commuters and the general public, constitutes a material change of use, and is not exempt from the requirement to obtain planning permission:
AND WHEREAS the said Frinailla Development Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 23rd day of December, 2009:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended);
(b) the plans, particulars and documentation submitted in connection with the planning applications and appeals for the overall City Square development (PL 28.211783 and PL 28.211784 refer) including in respect of parking provision to serve the development;
(c) the conditions attached to the said planning permissions (PL 28.211783 and PL 28.211784 refer);
(d) the structure for charging for use of the said parking, which, after the expiry of the initial period of two hours, entails payment of a flat rate of €5 (five euro) per day, or provision of parking on an annual contract basis;
(e) the change in the character of the car park use, and the implications for the availability of parking spaces to serve the needs of residents and users of the City Square development; and
(f) the external effects arising from the changed car park use, particularly considerations related to proper planning, including:
(i) the loss of parking spaces serving the residents and other users of the City Square development,
(ii) consequent possible increased on-street car parking in nearby streets,
(iii) the impact on traffic patterns and volumes in the vicinity, and
(iv) the impact in relation to sustainable patterns of travel and commuting.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) planning permission was granted for the City Square development on the basis of provision of a particular number of parking spaces, calculated as being adequate to serve the needs of residents and other users of the City Square development;
(b) the introduction of the parking charges, as structured, encourages use of the car park by other members of the public, particularly commuters, with no other connection with the City Square development;
(c) such use by other members of the public reduces the availability of parking spaces to serve the needs of the City Square development, alters the pattern of traffic in the vicinity and acts as an incentive for car borne commuting;
(d) consequently, there is a change in the nature and pattern of usage of the car park structure constituting a change of use;
(e) having regard to the foregoing factors, this change of use amounts to a material change of use and is development; and
(f) the said development does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Acts, 2000-2010 or Regulations made thereunder.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the charging for parking after a specific two-hour stay within the existing underground car park which serves the City Square development at 48-52 Watercourse Road, Cork, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated November 24, 2010
07.RL.2775
GALWAY COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of playing pitch and tennis courts facilities outside of normal school hours by bodies not associated with Scoil Iosaif Naofa, Kinvara, County Galway is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Gabrielle Lavelle care of Leahy and Conway Architects of Mill Road House, Mill Road, Ennis, County Clare requested a declaration on the said question from Galway County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 23rd day of July, 2010 stating that the said matter is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Gabrielle Lavelle referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 13th day of August, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) classes 15 and 33 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and
(c) the authorised use of the land as an educational facility under permissions granted under planning register reference number 08/3109 and An Bord Pleanála appeal reference number PL 07.236559.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the said use of lands for sports and recreation outside of school hours by bodies not associated with the school has been permitted and the only restriction on use is limited to hours of operation and so the limits and conditions of Classes 15 and 33 of Part 1 of Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 do not apply in this instance, and
(b) as there is no restriction on the use of the land by bodies other than Scoil Iosaif Naofa, no change of use has occurred:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of playing pitch and tennis courts facilities outside of normal school hours by bodies not associated with Scoil Iosaif Naofa, Kinvara, County Galway is not development.
Dated December 16, 2010
25.RL.2682
WESTMEATH COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether changes to the internal layout permitted under planning register reference number 08/5030, change of use of the ground floor from café bakery to restaurant and associated takeaway with extended opening hours and alterations to the permitted front elevation under planning register reference number 06/5662, at 26 Oliver Plunkett Street, Mullingar, County Westmeath, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Westmeath County Council issued a declaration on the 30th day of October, 2009, stating that the said changes to the internal layout permitted under planning register reference number 08/5030, change of use of the ground floor from café bakery to restaurant and associated takeaway with extended opening hours and alterations to the permitted front elevation under planning register reference number 06/5662, constitute exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said declaration was referred to An Bord Pleanála for review by Ciaran Moynihan and Carol Whyte care of Clarke O’Donnell and Associates of The Well House, Patrick Street, Mullingar, County Westmeath on the 25th day of November, 2009:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended;
(b) articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 as amended;
(c) the planning history of development on the site; and
(d) the layout of the premises as now constituted.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the planning permission granted in respect of the premises per register reference number 08/5030 provided for use as café bakery with food precooked off site,
(b) the current use of the premises is a restaurant (including kitchen), with associated takeaway and extended opening hours, and is a material change of use,
(c) the changes to the internal layout of the premises have been made to facilitate the said material change of use and are not authorised by any planning permission, and
(d) the alterations to the permitted front elevation under planning register reference number 06/5662 are material and are not authorised by any planning permission.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that
• the change of use of the ground floor from café bakery to restaurant and associated takeaway with extended opening hours is development and is not exempted development;
• the changes to the internal layout permitted under planning register reference number 08/5030 are development and are not exempted development; and
• alterations to the permitted front elevation under planning register reference number 06/5662 are development and are not exempted development. Dated June 9, 2010
63.RL.2637
KILLARNEY TOWN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the inclusion of a dispensary on the ground floor of the Primary Care Centre, granted permission under planning register reference number 08/4927, at Ballydribbeen and Ardnamweely, Killarney, County Kerry is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Killarney Primary Care Development Group care of McCutcheon Mulcahy of 6 Joyce House, Barrack’s Square, Ballincollig, County Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Killarney Town Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 11th day of May, 2009 stating that the said development was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Killarney Primary Care Development Group referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 8th day of June, 2009:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 3 (1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, including the definition of a “shop” therein,
(c) the classes of use set out at Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations, with particular reference to Class 1 and Class 8 thereof,
(d) article 9(1)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(e) the grant of permission made under planning register reference number 08/4927 and, in particular, the provisions of condition number 2 attached thereto, which states: The proposed retail units (pharmacy, health food outlet, medical aids and equipment) as outlined on floor plans and particulars received on the 16th day of September, 2008 shall not be permitted. No part of the proposed development shall be used as a ‘shop’ under the definition as set out in Part 4 Class 1 Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended. Revised proposals showing alternative uses for these units shall be submitted for the written agreement of the planning authority prior to the commencement of development.
Reason: In order to comply with the Land Use Zoning Objectives of the Town Development Plan, 2003.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the authorised use of the premises, as a primary care centre, under the provisions of the permission granted under planning register reference number 08/4927, is for a form of health centre or clinic for the provision of medical and health services,
(b) the authorised use falls within Use Class 8 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(c) use as a dispensary is not ancillary or incidental to the permitted medical and health services use, but entails the sale of prescribed medicines to the public, which is a form of “shop” (as defined at Article 5 of the Regulations, as amended) and, therefore, comes within Use Class 1 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) accordingly, the inclusion of a dispensary on the ground floor of the primary care centre constitutes a change of use, which is a material change of use from Class 8 to Class 1 and is, therefore, development,
(e) the said change of use does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2009 or of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(f) further, the said change of use would contravene condition number 2 of the planning permission for the Primary Care Centre, planning register reference number 08/4927,
(g) the inclusion of a dispensary in the primary care centre would, therefore, constitute development and would not be exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the inclusion of a dispensary on the ground floor of the Primary Care Centre, granted permission under planning register reference number 08/4927, at Ballydribbeen and Ardnamweely, Killarney, County Kerry is development and is not exempted development.
Dated March16, 2010.
29S.RL.2442
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of a licensed premises from a public house to off-license at 131 Thomas Street and 1 Bridgefoot Street, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Booze Busters Limited care of Kiaran O’Malley and Company Limited of Saint Heliers, Saint Heliers Copse, Stillorgan Park, Blackrock, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 10th day of May, 2007 stating that the said development was development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Booze Busters Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 5th day of June, 2007:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000;
(b) article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended
(c) Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations, and
(d) Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the change of use from use as a public house to use as an off-licence constitutes a material change of use by reason of trading patterns, consumption on the premises versus consumption off the premises, car parking and traffic, likely impacts on neighbouring residential amenity and social behaviour,
(b) therefore, the said material change of use constitutes development within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(c) the said change of use does not fall within the scope of any one of the classes of use specified in Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(d) the said change of use does not fall within the scope of Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5 of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of a licensed premises from public house to off-license at 131 Thomas Street and 1 Bridgefoot Street, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated December 16, 2009.
08.RL.2538
KERRY COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of part of a building from light industry to machine plant hire at Fossa, Killarney, County Kerry is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Kerry Die Products care of Paudie O’Mahony and Associates of Grosvenor Court, Upper High Street, Killarney, County Kerry requested a declaration on the said question from Kerry County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 8th day of May, 2008 stating that the said development was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Kerry Die Products referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 30th day of May, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to:
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(d) Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:-
(a) the hire and sale of plant and/or machinery on part of the site does not come within the meaning of light industrial use in the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and is, therefore, a change of use;
(b) being reliant on visiting members of the public to hire and purchase plant and/or machinery, the use is more akin to a retail use and in terms of the traffic generated, is materially different from the permitted light industrial use of the site;
(c) the use of part of the site for the hire and sale of plant and/or and machinery, therefore, constitutes a material change of use and is, therefore, development; and
(d) there is no provision in the said Act or Regulations exempting such a change of use.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of part of a building from light industry to machine plant hire at Fossa, Killarney, County Kerry is development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated March 12, 2009.
29S.RL.2542
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from public road and footpath to private residential garden at 10 Inchicore Square North, Inchicore, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Mary and Walter Tuffy and others care of Deaton Lysaght of 44 South Richmond Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 14th day of May, 2008 stating that the said development was exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Mary and Walter Tuffy and others referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 6th day of June, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had particular regard to:
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) articles 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) classes 13 and 33 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) the change of use from a footpath and roadway in the public domain to private residential garden to the rear of number 10 Inchicore Square North constitutes a material change of use of land and, therefore, constitutes development,
(b) notwithstanding the private ownership of the land in question, the said land comprises a footpath and roadway, which has been used by the public, on foot and by vehicle, to pass and re-pass without hindrance since its construction,
(c) the proposed change of use would obstruct road users, and
(d) therefore, notwithstanding the exempted development provisions of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, the proposed development comes within the restrictions on exemption under article 9(1)(a)(xi), by obstruction of a public right of way:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from public road and footpath to private residential garden at number 10 Inchicore Square North, Inchicore, Dublin constitutes development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated February 2, 2009.
24.RL.2563
WATERFORD COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of Unit 4, Butlerstown Retail Park, Waterford by Mothercare is a change of use from that permitted under planning register reference numbers 06/522 and 06/2026 and is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Noel Frisby Construction Limited of 1-2 Canada Street, Waterford requested a declaration on the said question from Waterford County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 21st day of July, 2008 stating that the said development was development and was exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Noel Frisby Construction Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 15th day of August, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 3 (1) and 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) Articles 5(1), 6(1), 9(1), 10(1) and 10(2) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) Class 1 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(e) the planning history of the site, and
(f) the definition of retail warehouse as set out in Annex 1 of the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in January, 2005, namely: “A large single-level store specialising in the sale of bulky household goods such as carpets, furniture and electrical goods, and bulky DIY items, catering mainly for car-borne customers and often in out-of-centre locations”:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the buildings on site have a permitted use (under planning register reference numbers 06/522 and 06/2026) as retail warehouses,
(b) The proposed use of the unit by Mothercare therefore constitutes a change of use. In reaching that conclusion, the Board noted that the retailing activity carried out by Mothercare (which includes the sale of baby, infant and maternity clothing and footwear, goods associated with feeding and bedding, toys and gifts, goods for personal care or other goods which are included in the definition of “comparison” goods in Annex 1 of the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in January, 2005) does not come within the scope of the definition of activities of a retail warehouse as set out in the said Retail Planning Guidelines, and
(c) the said change of use constitutes development, being a material change of use, having regard to its character and its material external impacts (such as its possible impact on city centre retailing, traffic and parking) on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of Unit 4, Butlerstown Retail Park, Waterford by Mothercare is a change of use from that permitted under planning register reference numbers 06/522 and 06/2026 and is development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated February 23, 2009.
06S.RL.2525
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of a portion of the building for wine importing, storage and distribution at the former SDS site, Naas Road, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Brunello Developments Limited care of McGill Planning at 3 Mount Street Crescent, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from South Dublin County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 20th day of March, 2008 stating that the said development was exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Brunello Developments Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 26th day of March, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Acts 2000,
(b) articles 5 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) schedule 2 to the said Regulations:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the proposed use is of a type which comes within Class of Use 5 of Part 4 of Sch.2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(b) the established permitted use does not fall within the same class of use,
(c) the proposed use cannot not avail of the exempted development provisions of art. 10 of the said Regulations, with reference to change of use within the meaning of the said Class of Use 5, and,
(d) the proposed use, therefore, constitutes a material change of use:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of a portion of the building for wine importing, storage and distribution at the former SDS site, Naas Road, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated November 7, 2008
06F.RL.2428
FINGAL COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of two light industrial permitted units (D1 and D2 granted under planning register reference number F05A/1874) for commercial vehicle storage, display, maintenance and ancillary wholesale retail sale at site 11, Area 3, Airside Enterprise Centre, Nevinstown, Swords, County Dublin is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Henry Flanagan care of McGill Planning of 3 Mount Street Crescent, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Fingal County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 15th day of March, 2007 stating that the said development was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Henry Flanagan referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 29th day of March, 2007:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3, 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) classes 4 and 5 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) the planning history of the site, including the extant permission granted under planning register reference number F05A/1874 and the conditions attached thereto, in particular conditions numbers 4 and 5, and
(e) table number 4.8 as set out in the Fingal County Development Plan, 2005-2011 (as cited at condition number 5 of the said planning permission granted under planning register reference number F05A/1874):
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the development permitted, under planning register reference number F05A/1874, for industrial units for science and technology related uses, under the terms and conditions of the permission granted includes use of the premises for light industry and warehousing,
(b) the use of the premises for commercial vehicle storage, display and maintenance falls within the above permitted uses and, therefore, is not a material change of use and is not development,
(c) the use of the premises for ancillary commercial vehicle wholesale retail sale would constitute a material change of use from the permitted use, which is development and would contravene condition number 4 of the permission granted under planning register reference number F05A/1874,
(d) furthermore, under the provisions of Article 10(2)(b)(iii) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, use for the sale or display for sale of motor vehicles is not a use included in any class in Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations and, therefore, does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of Article 10(1), and
(e) accordingly, use of the premises for ancillary commercial vehicle wholesale retail sale is not exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of permitted Units D1 and D2 for commercial vehicle storage, display and maintenance is not development and that the use for ancillary commercial vehicle wholesale retail sale is development which is not exempted development at Site 11, Area 3, Airside Enterprise Centre, Nevinstown, Swords, County Dublin.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated January 23, 2008
11.RL.2357
#
LAOIS COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether quarrying activities on lands, and the excavation of land, involving removal of topsoil and vegetation including mature trees, from woodland prior to commencement of quarrying activities on lands at Chapel Lane, Ballinakill, in the townland of Heywood Demesne, Barony of Cullenagh, County Laois is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Laois County Council on the 30thday of June, 2006:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) the areal extent of the existing quarry and the intensity of extraction, and
(c) the submissions made in connection with the referral regarding the history of extraction of material at this site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the quarrying of the existing pit and of the adjoining area, to the extent registered under section 261 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, constitutes an intensification of activity greater than that which existed on the appointed day, such as to constitute a material change of use, and
(b) the area to the south-west of the existing pit, which has been cleared through the removal of topsoil and vegetation, was, until 2005, an area of woodland and that the stripping of topsoil from that area constitutes works of excavation, which is development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the quarrying of both the existing pit and the adjoining area, to the extent registered under section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as outlined in red on drawing number QY 05/18 of Laois County Council, is development and is not exempted development and that the removal of topsoil from the wooded area to the south-west of the registered area, prior to commencement of quarrying activities, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated September 7, 2007
27.RL.2377
WICKLOW COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether (a) quarrying operations to date on site and (b) the further southward expansion of the quarried area into Arklow Rock at Rockbig, Arklow, County Wicklow is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Wicklow County Council on August 24, 2006:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 and sections 127 to 132 (inclusive) of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) the submissions of the parties to the referral in relation to the use of the land since the appointed day (namely, October 1, 1964), and
(c) the further southward expansion of the quarried area into Arklow Rock, within an area designated as a proposed Natural Heritage Area and in a manner that would significantly alter the visual appearance of Arklow Rock:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) there is no clear evidence that the existing works on site constitute intensification of use to the extent that these works could be considered a material change of use, and
(b) the further southward expansion of the quarried area into Arklow Rock would raise new planning issues as compared with the use of the lands on the appointed day and, therefore, these works would constitute an intensification of use that would amount to a material change of use:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that—
(a) quarrying operations to date on site are exempted development, and
(b) the further southward expansion of the quarried area into Arklow Rock at Rockbig, Arklow, County Wicklow is development and is not exempted development.
Dated February 26, 2007
08.RL.2302
KERRY COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the commercial use of an information kiosk at Torc Waterfall, Dronmyrourk, Muckross, Killarney, County Kerry is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Kerry County Council on the December 14, 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a)
(i) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963,
(ii) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000;
(b)
(i) articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994,
(ii) articles 5 (as amended), 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(c)
(i) classes 1 and 2 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994,
(ii) classes 1 and 2 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(d)
(i) class 13 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994,
(ii) class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(e)
(i) the definition of “business premises” and “shop” as set out in Article 8 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994,
(ii) the definition of “business premises” and “shop” as set out in Article 5 (as amended) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and
(f) the planning history on the site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) planning permission was granted by the planning authority originally for an information centre (and toilet block) at this location under planning register reference number 425/72. The authorised use is, therefore, that of “information centre”,
(b) an information centre is considered to constitute a form of service to visiting members of the public and, thereby, to come within—
(i) class 2(c) of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, or
(ii) class 2(c) of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(c) the current commercial use is considered to constitute a “shop” and to come within—
(i) class 1 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, or
(ii) class 1 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(d) it is considered, therefore, that a material change of use has been made from Class 2(c) to Class 1,
(e) accordingly, under the provisions of—
(i) section 3(1) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963, or, in the alternative,
(ii) section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the commercial use of the information kiosk, being a material change of use, constitutes development,
(f) whereas development consisting of a change of use from Class 2 to use as a shop (Class 1) is generally considered to be exempted development, under the provisions of—
(i) article 9 and Class 13 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, or
(ii) article 6 and Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
nevertheless, this is subject to the provisions of—
(i) article 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, or
(ii) article 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(g) in particular,
(i) article 10(1)(a)(iii) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, provides that development, which would generally come within the exempted development provisions of the Second Schedule to the said Regulations, or in the alternative,
(ii) article 9 (1)(a)(iii) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, provides that development, which would generally come within the exempted development provisions of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5(4) of the 2000 Act hereby decides that the said change of use from information kiosk to commercial unit is development and is not exempted development by reason of—
(i) the provisions of article 10(1)(a)(iii) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, or, in the alternative,
(ii) the provisions of article 9(1)(a)(iii) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.
Dated October 5, 2006
09.RL.2311
KILDARE COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether reclamation of derelict lands to agricultural use for the raising and keeping of horses and ponies in the townland of Barberstown Upper, Maynooth, County Kildare is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Michael and Patricia Geraghty care of Brian A. Rennick and Company of Main Street, Dunboyne, County Meath requested a declaration on the said question from Kildare County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on December 6, 2005 stating that the said development was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Michael and Patricia Geraghty referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála January 10, 2006:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and
(b) article 6(3) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 with particular reference to Class 11 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the activity/operation described in this referral constitutes a material change of use of the land by reference to section 3(2)(b)(iii) of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) the activity/operation described in this referral constitutes development as defined in section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and
(c) the land the subject of this referral is not land which is used only for the purpose of agriculture or forestry and does not come within the scope of Class 11 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said reclamation of derelict lands to agricultural use for the raising and keeping of horses and ponies in the townland of Barberstown Upper, Maynooth, County Kildare is not exempted development.
Dated June 20, 2006.
52.RL.2241
CLONMEL BOROUGH
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of former Bank of Ireland premises into a shop and subdivision into two shop units, at 77–78 O’Connell Street, Clonmel, County Tipperary is or is not development and is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Clonmel Borough Council on April 18, 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) Articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) Class 14(d) of part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations, and
(e) the planning history of the site, with particular reference to planning register reference numbers PDA/2/253 and 05/11:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the proposed change of use from a bank to a shop constitutes a material change of use within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) the said material change of use comes within the scope of Class 14 (d) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 being a change from a Class 2 office use to a Class 1 shop use,
(c) the works necessary to subdivide a single shop into two shop units come within the scope of section 4(1)(h) of the said Act, being works which affect only the interior of the structure,
(d) the proposed subdivision into two shop units would give rise to increased commercial activity and would have material consequences in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and
(e) notwithstanding the conclusion contained in paragraph (c) above, the said subdivision would constitute a material change of use, being an intensification of the use of the land:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that (1) the change of use from bank to shop use at 77–78 O’Connell Street, Clonmel, County Tipperary is development and is exempted development, and (2) the subdivision of the bank into two shop units is development and is not exempted development.
Dated September 23, 2005
42.RL.2203
CARLOWTOWN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the erection of antennae on the roof of Hillview Nursing Home and change of use of a room within the Nursing Home to use as a control centre is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Carlow Town Council on November 1, 2004:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3, and 4(2) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) articles 5(1), 6(1) and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) class 31 (f) and 31 (k) of Part 1, and class 9 of Part 4. of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(d) the planning history of the site with particular reference to permission granted under planning register reference number PD3968.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the attachment of the antennae to the roof of the nursing home constitutes works within the meaning of section 3 of the Act, and the change of use of a room on the first floor of the nursing home to a control centre for the storage of telecommunications equipment, is a material change of use within the meaning of section 3 of the Act,
(b) the nursing home is not a “business premises” as defined under article 5(1)of theRegulations, as it is an “excluded premises” by reason of its use,
(c) the nursing home is not a “commercial building” under class 31 (k), and is an excluded use under class 31 (k), and the attachment of the antennae to the roof of the nursing home, therefore, does not benefit from the exemption envisaged under the provisions of class 31(k), and
(d) the change of use of the room within the nursing home is inconsistent with the use for that room, as included in permission granted under planning register reference number PD3968.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that:
(a) the erection of telecommunications antennae on the roof of the nursing home is development, and is not exempted development, and
(b) the change of use of a room within the nursing home to use as a control centre for telecommunications equipment is development, and is not exempted development.
Dated March 15, 2005
13.RL.2137
LIMERICK COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from a coal importation, processing, exportation facility to a waste processing facility at Foynes Harbour, Foynes, County Limerick is or is not development or is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS Earth Buddies Limited care of Nigel Barnes and Associates of Beechpark, Kilmaley Road, Ennis, County Clare requested a declaration on the said question from Limerick County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on January 9, 2004 stating that the said change of use is development and is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS Earth Buddies Limited referred the declaration forreview to An Bord Pleanála on January 23,2004.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000;
(b) the definition of “industrial process” in Art.5 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001;
(c) Article 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 and the classes of use specified in Pt 4 of Sch.2 to these Regulations; and
(d) the permission granted for importing, exporting, storing, screening, bagging, processing/binding of coal, construction of plants and site works at Durnish, Foynes under planning register reference number 568/91.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the materials involved in the proposed waste processing which consists of (i) mechanical separation of waste into its elemental parts and (ii) composting to produce recoverable products are not articles within the definition of “industrial process” in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 and, therefore, no altering or breaking up or demolition of any article takes place during the course of the process in question,
(b) the process of mechanical separation of waste and composting to produce recoverable products does not constitute an industrial process,
(c) the change of use from the industrial use permitted under planning register reference number 568/91 to mechanical separation of waste and composting to produce recoverable products constitutes a material change of use, and
(d) the process of mechanical separation of waste and composting to produce recoverable products is not included in any class in Pt 4 of Sch.2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use from a coal importation, processing, exportation facility to a waste processing facility at Foynes Harbour, Foynes, County Limerick is development and is not exempted development
Dated May 27, 2004.
29N.RL.2093
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether development comprising (a) the use of that portion of the premises referred to as the “leisure centre” for use as a leisure centre together with the ancillary use for the sale of intoxicating liquor, (b) the signs attached to the building referring to “Bar Code” and (c) the car parking between the complex and the Clontarf Road boundary at the West Wood Club, Clontarf Road, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development
AND WHEREAS West Wood Club care of Peter Duff and Company of 64 Carysfort Avenue, Blackrock, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on August 21, 2003 stating that the said development was not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said West Wood Club referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on September 17, 2003.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, with particular reference to article 9(1)(a)(i) and (viii),
(c) Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(d) Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, with particular reference to class 11(e), and
(e) the planning history of the site.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the use of the leisure area as a bar constitutes a material change of use having regard, in particular, to its scale and the provision of a separate entrance,
(b) the provision of signage attached to the building does not come within the scope of section 4(1)(h), not being works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of the structure,
(c) the provision of associated “Bar Code” signage is exhibited on a structure the use of which is an unauthorised use, and
(d) the use of the area permitted as outdoor tennis courts as a car park constitutes a material change of use which does not come within the scope of any of the exemptions allowed under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that each of the following (a) the use of that portion of the premises referred to as the “leisure centre” for use as a leisure centre together with the ancillary use for the sale of intoxicating liquor, (b) the signs attached to the building referring to “Bar Code”, and (c) the car parking between the complex and the Clontarf Road boundary at the West Wood Club, Clontarf Road, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated January 30, 2004.
29S.RL.2020
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether or not a change of use of Unit 1 and Unit 1C at the Concord Industrial Estate, Naas Road, Dublin from motor/warehouse showrooms to shop for the sale of tiles is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS I.B.I. Property Nominees Limited care of Jim Brogan of 33 Ashleigh Green, Castleknock, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and Dublin City Council issued a declaration on August 23, 2002 stating that the said development was not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said I.B.I. Property Nominees Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on September 19, 2002.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) section 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) articles 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(c) class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and
(d) the planning history of the site and, in particular, condition number 1 of planning register reference number 3760/98.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the proposed change of use comes within the provisions of Class 14(a) of Part 1 of Schedule Two of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(b) the proposed change of use does not contravene condition number 1 of planning register reference number 3760/98 issued by Dublin Corporation, as this condition only relates to the implementation of the permission granted and does not restrict any future uses which would otherwise be exempt, and
(c) section 4(2)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 is not of relevance in determining referrals before the Board.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said development is development and is exempted development.
Dated April 25, 2003.
16.RF.1053
MAYOCOUNTY
WHEREASa question has arisen as to whether the change of use from peat drying processes to drying sewage sludge cake for the purpose of producing fertiliser at Muinghmore, Geesala, County Mayo is or is not development or exempted development.
AND WHEREASthe said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by MacHales Solicitors of Pearse Street, Ballina, County Mayo on behalf of Seamus Cafferkey and others on September 28, 2001.
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3, 4 and 28 (6)of the Local Government(Planning and Development) Act 1963,
(b) articles 8 to 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, and
(c) the nature of the use now proposed, including the raw material employed, ancillary activities and the end product.
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála has concluded that–
(a) the change of use constitutes an industrial process which is materially different from that previously carried out at the site,
(b) planning considerations arise from the change of use which are materially different from those pertaining to the previous activity on the site,
(c) the change of use is material, in the context of the proper planning and development of the area, and
(d) the process is not such that could be carried out within a “light industrial building”, as defined at article 8 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994 and, therefore, does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of article 11(1) and class IV of the Second Schedule to the said Regulations.
NOW THEREFOREAn Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is development and is not exempted development.
Dated August 23, 2002.
06S.RF.1015
COUNTY SOUTH DUBLIN
WHEREASa question has arisen as to whether the positioning of a 15.7 metre transportable radio link at Dan Kennedy Steel, Old Lucan Road, Palmerstown, County Dublin is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREASthe said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Meteor Mobile Communications Limited of 4030 Kingswood Avenue, Citywest Business Park, Naas Road, Dublin on May 16, 2001.
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4of the sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government Planning and Development Act 1963, and
(b) articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, with particular reference to Class 29 of Part I of the Second Schedule to these Regulations.
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála has concluded that the positioning of a 15.7 metre transportable radio link constitutes a material change of use of land and does not constitute the provision of a transportable radio link for the purposes of Class 29 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Regulations, being part of a public mobile telephony infrastructure which is essentially permanent in nature.
NOW THEREFOREAn Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the positioning of the said transportable radio link at Dan Kennedy Steel, Old Lucan Road, Palmerstown, County Dublin is not exempted development.
Dated May 8, 2002.
27.RF.1045
COUNTY WICKLOW
WHEREASa question has arisen as to whether the erection of a structure described as a transportable radio link at Golden Hill, Manor Kilbride, County Wicklow is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREASthe said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Wicklow County Council of Council Offices, County Buildings, Wicklow, County Wicklow on September 3, 2001.
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4of the sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963, and
(b) articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, with particular reference to Class 29 of Part I of the Second Schedule to these Regulations.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the erection of a structure described as a transportable radio link constitutes a material change of use of land and does not constitute the provision of a transportable radio link for the purposes of Class 29 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Regulations, being part of a public mobile telephony infrastructure which is essentially permanent in nature.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the erection of the said structure described as a transportable radio link at Golden Hill, Manor Kilbride, County Wicklow is not exempted development.
Dated July 2, 2002.
14.RF.1006
COUNTY LONGFORD
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the installation of G.S.M. antennae in the belfry of Saint Catherine’s Ballymahon, Church of Ireland, Ballymahon, County Longford is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Declan Brassil and Company Limited of 4 Cloncourt, Main Street, Clonee, County Meath on behalf of Eircell on March 22, 2001.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963,
(b) articles 9 and 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, with particular reference to class 7 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to these Regulations.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that–
(a) the installation of G.S.M. antennae and cabinets within the church to facilitate mobile telephony constitute works which come within the meaning of “development” in section 3 (1) of the 1963 Act,
(b) the installation of G.S.M. antennae and cabinet within the church constitute a material change of use of the land which also comes within the meaning of “development”, and
(c) the works involved and the change of use of the land do not come within the scope of section 4 (1)(g) of the 1963 Act.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5of thesection 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said installation of G.S.M. antennae in the belfiy of Saint Catherine’s Ballymahon Church of Ireland is not exempted development.
Dated October 19, 2001.
07.RF.0931
COUNTY GALWAY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a change of use from a tyre/vehicle repair and service station to the repair and servicing of vehicles associated with a waste collection business at Pollkeen, Ballybrit, County Galway is or is not development or exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Biospheric Engineering Limited of 109 Seacrest, Barna Road, Galway on behalf of Actco Limited on the 1st day of December, 1999:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963,
(b) articles 8 to 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, with particular reference to Part IV of the Second Schedule to these Regulations, and
(c) the planning history of the site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the said change of use comes within the meaning of “development” in Section 3(1) of the 1963 Act,
(b) the said change of use does not come within the meaning of “light industrial building” as set out in article 8(1) of the 1994 Regulations and does not come within the scope of articles 9(1) (a) or 9(3) of these Regulations,
(c) the said change of use does not come within the scope of article 11(1) of the 1994 Regulations as the use of the premises for the repair of vehicles or machinery would contravene a condition attached to a permission for development on the site, namely condition 6 of the permission granted by the planning authority an the 19th day of July, 1982 under register reference number 42260, and
(d) the restriction on exemption in article 11(4)(b)(ii) of the 1994 Regulations applies to the said change of use:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 27th day of June 2000.
PL 27.RF.
929
COUNTY WICKLOW
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of land (which is described as the deposit of fill material for the sole purpose of land reclamation) at Ballyvaltron, Barndarrig, County Wicklow is or is not exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts 1963 to 1999:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Wicklow County Council on the 10th day of November, 1999:
AND WHEREAS the Board, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to:
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1963 Act, and
(b) articles 9 and 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994 with particular reference to Class 9 of Part III of the Second Schedule to these Regulations:
AND WHEREAS the Board has concluded that –
(a) the said use of the land constitutes a material change of use of the land by reference to section 3(2)(b)(iii) of the 1963 Act, and, therefore, comes within the meaning of “development” in this section, and it has not been established to the satisfaction of An Bord Pleanála that the said use of the land comes within the scope of Class 9 of Part III of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Regulations, having regard particularly to the fact that it is considered that the use of the lands does not constitute land reclamation solely for the purpose of agriculture or forestry:
NOW THEREFORE the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, has decided that the said use of land is not exempted development.
Dated this 9th day of March 2000
80.RF.0861
TIPPERARY URBAN DISTRICT
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of a function room to a retail shop at Bank Place, Tipperary is or is not development or exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Tipperary Urban District Council on the 22nd day of May, 1998:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to —
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1963 Act,
(b) articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, and
(c) the planning history of the site, with particular reference to —
(i) the planning permission granted on the 5th day of March, 1965 under planning register reference number PD 2/15 in respect of “general reconstruction and erection of function room and toilets at Dobbyn’ s Hotel, Tipperary”, and
(ii) the planning permission granted on the 2nd day of December, 1996 under planning register reference number PD 2/1176 “for new shop windows for existing building at Bank Place”.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that —
(a) the appropriate planning unit in relation to this reference is the hotel, of which the function room forms part,
(b) the said change of use from a function room to a retail shop constitutes a material change in the use of the building which would come within the meaning of development in section 3(1) of the 1963 Act, and
(c) the said change of use from a function room to a retail shop does not come within the scope of Class 13(b) of Part I of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use from a function room to a retail shop is development and is not exempted development
Dated this 21st day of December 1998.
RF.05.0804
COUNTY DONEGAL
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of the function room in the Milford Hotel, Milford, County Donegal for District Court sittings once a month is or is not development or exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts 1963 to 1993:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Donegal County Council on the 15th day of January, 1997:
AND WHEREAS the said use has applied for a period of upwards of eight years:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963,
(b) section 3 of the Courthouses (Provision and Maintenance) Act 1935, and
(c) section 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1993:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) provision of the said function room for District Court sittings has been made by Donegal County Council in pursuance of section 3 of the Courthouses (Provision and Maintenance) Act 1935
(b) the use of the said function room for District Court sittings constitutes a material change in the use of the hotel
(c) the said change of use constitutes development by the council of a county in the county health district which comes within the scope of section 4(1)(b) of the 1963 Act, and
(d) the said use was carried out by Donegal County Council on behalf of the Minister for Justice, and at the time that the use commenced permission was not required having regard to section 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1993:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said use is development and is exempted development.
Dated this 14th day of July 1997.
RF.06S.0808
COUNTY SOUTH DUBLIN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of part of the office/reception building at Palmerstown Cemetery, Palmerstown, County Dublin to use for the sale of flowers is or is not development or exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Frank L. Benson and Partners of Hainault House, 69-71 St. Stephen’s Green, Dublin on behalf of Glasnevin Cemeteries Group on the 13th day of February, 1997:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963,
(b) articles 9 and 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994 with particular reference to classes 13 and 37 of Part I and to classes 2 and 3 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to these Regulations, and
(c) the permission granted by An Bord Pleanála on the 8th day of March, 1996 under planning register reference number S95A/0426 and Board reference number PL 06S.097412 for development which included alterations to the existing office/reception building:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the use of part of the office/reception building for the sale of flowers is incidental to the primary use of the premises as an office/reception building for the direction of funerals, and
(b) the said change of use of part of the office/reception building to use for the sale of flowers does not constitute a material change in the use of the office/reception building in the context of section 3 of the 1963 Act:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is not development and that, as a consequence, the question as to whether it is exempted development does not arise.
Dated this 23rd day of July 1997
Reference 01/RF/697
COUNTY CARLOW
WHEREAS questions have arisen as to whether –
(a) the use of a gravel pit at Curracruit, Bagnelstown, County Carlow for the purpose of excavating material, and
(b) the filling of part of the said gravel pit with waste material taken from another gravel pit
are or are not development or exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993:
AND WHEREAS the said questions are referred to An Bord Pleanála by George and Mary Doyle care of John M. Hayes and Company of 5 Saint Michael’s Street, Tipperary on the 15th day of July, 1994:
AND WHEREAS the use and the works the subject of this reference commenced prior to the 16th day of May, 1994:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 3, 4 and 24 of the 1963 Act, and
(b) articles 9 to 12 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1977:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) material has been excavated from the gravel pit at Curracruit intermittently for at least eighty years and it has not been established that there was a clear intention of abandoning the use of the said gravel pit at any stage during this period.
(b) the said use of the gravel pit at Curracruit for the purpose of excavating material does not constitute a material change of use and does not come within the scope of section 3 of the 1963 Act.
(c) the use of the gravel pit at Curracruit for the deposit of waste material from another gravel pit comes within the scope of section 3 (2) (b) (iii) of the 1963 Act, and accordingly, the said use involves the making of a material change in the use of the said gravel pit at Curracruit, and
(d) the use of the gravel pit at Curracruit for the deposit of waste material from another pit does not come within the scope of section 4(1) of the 1963 Act and is not otherwise exempt by reference to articles 9 to 12 of the 1977 Regulations.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that-
(a) the said use of the gravel pit at Curracruit for the purpose of excavating material is not development, and
(b) the filling of part of the said gravel pit with waste material taken from another gravel pit is development and is not exempted development
Reference 68/RF/698
LONGFORD URBAN DISTRICT
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether development comprising the provision and use of a running track around an existing football field at Saint Mel’s College, Longford is or is not exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Longford Urban District Council on the 26th day of July, 1994:
AND WHEREAS the said development commenced prior to the 16th day of May, 1994:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 4 of the 1963 Act, and
(b) articles 10 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1977:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the said running track is being provided for the use and development of the students of the College and that the promotion of commercial sporting events does not come within the terms of reference of the College, and
(b) the said development comes within the scope of class 26 (d) of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the 1977 Regulations and that the restrictions on exemption provided for in article 11 of the 1977 Regulations do not apply to the said development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is development and is not exempted development.
ABP-308257-20
Cork City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from a single dwelling to a facility for those recovering from addictions at Number 1 Stratton Pines, Bishopstown, County Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Cuan Mhuire CLG care of RDF Architects and Planning of Unit 19 Charleville Town Centre, Charleville, County Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Cork City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 1st day of September, 2020 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Cuan Mhuire CLG care of RDF Architects and Planning of Unit 19 Charleville Town Centre, Charleville, County Cork referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanala on the 18th day of September, 2020:
AND WHEREAS having regard to the nature of the question and the documentation submitted as part of the referral, the Board considered that the referral question should be reformulated as follows:
“whether the proposed use of the dwelling at Number 1 Stratton Pines, Bishopstown, Cork as a residential care unit for persons with an intellectual or physical disability or mental illness and persons providing care for such persons is or is not development or is or is not exempted development”:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2(1), 3(1) and 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 6(1), Class 1 and Class 14(f) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Article 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(d) the planning history of the site,
(e) the pattern of development in the area, and
(f) the report of the Inspector,
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala has concluded that the change of use of Number 1 Stratton Pines, Bishopstown, Cork from a single dwelling to a residential care unit for persons with intellectual, physical disability or mental illness and persons providing care is development and is exempted development as it falls within the scope of Class 14(f) of the Regulations, 2001, as amended:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanala, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that whether the proposed use of the dwelling at Number 1 Stratton Pines, Bishopstown, Cork as a residential care unit for persons with an intellectual or physical disability or mental illness and persons providing care for such persons is development and exempted development.
Matters Considered
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated this 14th day of April 2022
ABP0311452-21
Galway City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use as a betting office to use for the provision of a professional fitness service to visiting members of the public is or is not development or is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS Michael Duffy of 1 Clos na hEaglaise, Kilfenora, County Clare requested a declaration on this question from Galway City Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 27th day of August 2021, stating that the matter was development and was not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS Michael Duffy referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanala on the 22nd day of September 2021.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a)Section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b)Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(c)Section 4(1)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(d)Article 6(1) and Article 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(e)Class 2 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(f)the planning history of the site,
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala has concluded that:
(a)Permission was granted under Galway City Council Register Reference Number 01/248 for the change of use at the subject site from an antique retail unit to a telephone/ internet call centre and bookmakers office for ground floor of Number 7 and for the erection of two satellite dishes and this use is established at the subject premises,
(b)the proposed change of use from the established use as a betting shop to use for the provision of a professional fitness service to visiting members of the public, would constitute a change of use from a use under Class 2 of Part 1 to the Second Schedule of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (as amended) to use under Class 11 of Part 1 to the Second Schedule of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (as amended),
(c)the proposed change of use from the established use as a betting shop to use for the provision of a professional fitness service to visiting members of the public would constitute development in accordance with Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended),
(d)the proposed change of use by reason of the change from Class 2 to Class 11 as described above, is deemed material within the meaning of Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(e)there are no provisions within the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended or the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, by which such development would be classified as exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanala, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from betting office to use as a professional fitness service to visiting members of the public, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 9th day of February 2022
ABP-308306-20
Kildare County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a development comprising the change of use from a house to use as a residence by persons with an intellectual or physical disability or mental illness at Mylerstown, Naas, County Kildare is or is not development and is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS David Durney of New Beginnings, Residential and Child Care Services of 12 Riverside Park, Newbridge, County Kildare requested a declaration on the said question from Kildare County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 4th day of September, 2020 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS David Durney referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 30th day of September, 2020:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) article 6(1) and article 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Schedule 2 Part 1 Class 14(f) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(d) the nature and scale of the proposed use as a residence for young persons with an intellectual or physical disability or mental illness requiring care, attention or therapy:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the change of use of a house to use as a residence by persons with an intellectual or physical disability or mental illness constitutes a material change of use, and is therefore development, as defined in section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) this change of use comes within the scope of Class 14(f) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, and,
(c) none of the restrictions on exemption set out in article 9(1) of these Regulations apply in this instance.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from a house to use as residence by persons with an intellectual or physical disability or mental illness at Mylerstown, Naas, County Kildare is development and is exempted development.
Dated this 17thday of February 2021
ABP-307083-20
Dublin City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the continuation of retail use from off-licence to introduction of retail use as a pharmacy in place of former retail use as an off-licence at 62 Dorset Street Lower, Dublin, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Michael Maher care of Kenny Kane Associates of Oak Hollow Studio, Upper Glenageary Road, Glenageary, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 20th day of March, 2020 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Michael Maher care of Simon Clear and Associates of 3 Terenure Road West, Terenure, Dublin referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 16th day of April, 2020:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála decided to rephrase the question as follows: “Whether the change of use from an off-licence to a pharmacy at 62 Dorset Street Lower, Dublin, is development and is not exempted development.”
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2020,
(c) Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2020,
(d) the planning history of the site,
(e) the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016-2022,
(f) the pattern of development in the area, and
(g) the submissions on file from the referrer:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that —
(a) the previous and permitted use of the premises as an off-licence and the change to the current use of the premises as a pharmacy constitutes a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use and is, therefore, development within the meaning of Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and;
(b) there are no provisions in the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, or in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2020, made thereunder, whereby the said change of use is exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from an off-licence to a pharmacy at 62 Dorset Street Lower, Dublin, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 26thday of January 2021
ABP-306161-19
Cork City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of an existing industrial site and buildings to use as a Resource Recovery and Recycling Centre (RRRC) and ancillary storage at the former TATA Steel site, Tivoli Industrial Estate, Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Cork City Council on the 12th day of December, 2019:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2 and 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5 to 11 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, with particular reference to articles 5(1) and 10(1),
(c) Part 4 of Schedule 2 ‘Exempted Development – Classes of Use’ of those Regulations,
(d) the planning history of the site, and
(e) the submissions of the parties to the referral:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the change of use of a steel stock depot to a Resource Recovery and Recycling Centre constitutes ‘development’ for the purposes of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) the change of use constitutes a material change, and
(c) no exemption exists in legislation for such a material change of use:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of an existing industrial site and buildings to use as a Resource Recovery and Recycling Centre (RRRC) and ancillary storage at the former TATA Steel site, Tivoli Industrial Estate, Cork is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 13th day of May 2020
ABP-304612-19
South Dublin County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of a nursing home to a residential rehabilitation care centre at Glencarrig Nursing Home, Glencarrig Court, Firhouse Road, Tallaght, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Brian Lawlor of 7 Beechdale Court, Ballycullen, Dublin requested a declaration on this question from South Dublin County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 9thday of May, 2019 stating that the matter is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Brian Lawlor referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 4thday of June, 2019:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
(a)section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b)section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended
(c)section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(d)section 4(4) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(e)Article 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(f)Class 9 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(g)the planning history of the site and the nature of the subject use, and
(h)the report of the Inspector on this file:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a)modification of the nursing home for use as a residential rehabilitation care centre would involve the carrying out of works (of a minor nature) to the interior of the property,
(b)the change of use of the existing premises from use as a nursing home to a residential rehabilitation care centre for women and children would represent a change of use, and such change of use would raise issues relevant to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and would, therefore, constitute a material change of use,
(c)the proposed works and material change of use constitute development,
(d)the proposed works being minor in nature and being works which affect only the interior of the structure or which do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures come within the scope of section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and are, therefore, exempted development, and
(e)the proposed material change of use comprises a change of use that falls within the scope of Class 9 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, being a change of use from a nursing home (Class 9(b)) to the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (Class 9(a)) and is, therefore, exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from a nursing home to a residential rehabilitation care centre at Glencarrig Nursing Home Glencarrig Court, Firhouse Road, Dublin is development and is exempted development.
Dated this 2nd day of March 2020
ABP-303219-18
Dublin City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the provision of a framed, glazed and roofed structure to the front of 58 Grand Canal Street Upper, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Paul James and Barry McNerney care of Simon Clear and Associates of 3 Terenure Road West, Terenure, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 19thday of November, 2018 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Paul James and Barry McNerney care of Simon Clear and Associates referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 13thday of December, 2018:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
(a)section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b)section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(c)section 4(1)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(d)article 6(1) and article 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(e)Parts 1 and 3 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(f)the planning history of the site, and
(g)the layout of the premises as now constituted:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that —
(a)The enclosure and use of the area to the front of the restaurant asan extension of the restaurant would constitute development, being the making of a material change in the use of land within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
(b)The glazed roofed structure does not fall within the scope of section 4(1) (h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and is,therefore, considered to be development, which is not exempted development.
(c)The replacement of the former external retractable umbrella with a glazed roofed structure comprises works that constitute development which is not exempted development.
(d)The said use of the area enclosed by the structure has material consequences in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
(e)The said use of the area constitutes a material change of use being an extension of the net floorspace of the restaurant and consequently an intensification of use of the land.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the works involving the erection of a glazed and roofed structure to the front of the restaurant at 58 Grand Canal Street Upper, Dublin, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 26th day of March 2020
ABP-304108-19
Dublin City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the current use of the property at CrossFit353, Shaw’s Lane, Bath Avenue, Dublin constitutes a change of use from the use permitted under planning register reference number 0900/98 and whether such a change of use constitutes a material change of use or is considered exempted development within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended:
AND WHEREAS Peter Burke of Craze Athletics Limited care of Downey Planning of 1 Westland Square, Pearse Street, Dublin, requested a declaration on this question from Dublin City Council, and the Council issued a declaration on the 7th day of March, 2019 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Peter Burke referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 2nd day of April, 2019:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in light of the documentation submitted as part of the referral, decided to re-word the question as follows:-
“whether the change of use from the established/permitted use of the property at CrossFit353, Shaw’s Lane, Bath Avenue, Dublin to its current use as a gym, is or is not development and is or is not exempted development.”
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to:
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 6 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Classes 4 and 11 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(d) the planning history of the subject site, and in particular planning register reference number 0793/92, and
(e) the documentation submitted in relation to the subject gym use by the referrer.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(f) the established/permitted use of the subject premises is as a light industrial workshop, which use comes within the ambit of Class 4 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(g) the current use of the subject premises is as a gymnasium, which use comes within the ambit of Class 11 of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(h) the change of use from a light industrial workshop to a gymnasium is a change of use, and such change of use would raise issues relevant to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, including in relation to hours of operation, frequency of visits, visitor turnover and traffic, and materially different impacts on the residential amenities of properties in the vicinity, and would, therefore, constitute a material change of use, and is development, and
(i) there are no provisions in the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, or in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, whereby such development would be exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5 (3)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, hereby decides that the change of use from the established/permitted use of the property at CrossFit353, Shaw’s Lane, Bath Avenue, Dublin to its current use as a gym is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 5th day of September 2019
ABP-304548-19
Louth County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use that has already occurred at premises owned by Kevin Wall and operated by Swift Engineering Limited at Rathgory, Dunleer, County Louth, having regard to condition number 1 of planning permission register reference number 05/1008 is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Liam and Deirdre Ryan care of Brady Hughes Consulting Engineers Limited of 26 Magdalene Street, Drogheda, County Louth requested a declaration on this question from Louth County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 3rd day of May, 2019 stating that the matter is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Liam and Deirdre Ryan referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 27th day of May, 2019:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in the light of the documentation submitted with the referral, decided to re-word the question as follows:-
“Whether the change of use of a building previously granted planning permission under register reference number 05/1008 as a timber workshop for manufacturing of kitchen units, to its current use for steel fabrication, at Rathgory, Dunleer, County Louth, is or is not development and is or is not exempted development.”
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, including in particular the definition of the term “light industrial building”,
(c) Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, and in particular Class 4 of that Part,
(d) the documentation on file, including details submitted by the referrer and by the owner as to the nature of the current use of the site, and
(e) the planning and enforcement history of the site, including the terms and conditions of planning permission register reference number 05/1008, and in particular condition number 1 of that permission.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the authorised use of the subject premises, under planning permission register reference number 05/1008, is as a timber workshop and showroom,
(b) the change of use of the premises to use for steel fabrication is a factual change of use, and this change of use raises material issues relevant to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, including having regard to the pattern of development in the vicinity and the impacts on the residential amenities of adjoining properties through increased movement of heavy commercial vehicles and noise, and would, therefore, constitute a material change of use, and is development,
(c) the authorised use of the subject premises would come within the definition of “light industrial building”, but the current use for metal fabrication would not, in the circumstances of this case, come within such definition, and therefore, the change of use is not within the scope of the exemption provided for in article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(d) there are no other provisions, in the Act and Regulations, by which the development in this case would constitute exempted development, and
(e) in any event, any exemption would be restricted having regard to the terms of condition number 1 of planning permission register reference number 05/1008, which limited the authorised use, for the stated reason to prevent unauthorised development, to use as a timber workshop with associated showroom.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of a building previously granted planning permission under register reference number 05/1008 as a timber workshop for manufacturing of kitchen units, to its current use for steel fabrication, at Rathgory, Dunleer, County Louth, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 27th day of September 2019
ABP-303989-19
Galway City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the proposed partial change of use from shop to coffee shop at number 12 Cross Street Upper, Galway, and the proposed maintenance and conservation works to the upper floor façade at number 12 Cross Street and number 1 High Street, Galway (protected structures) is or is not development and is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Joelee Ward care of James O’Donnell Planning Consultancy Services of Third Floor, Ross House, Victoria Place, Eyre Square, Galway, requested a declaration on this question from Galway City Council, and the Council issued a declaration on the 21st day of February, 2019 stating that the partial change of use was development and was not exempted development, and that the maintenance and conservation works were development and were exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Joelee Ward referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 20th day of March, 2019:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
(a) Sections 2, 3, 4 and 57 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, including the definition of “shop” set out in Section 5(1) of the Regulations,
(c) the status of the building as a protected structure,
(d) the previous use of the ground floor of the subject premises as a shop,
(e) the submissions on file, including the architectural heritage impact assessment submitted by the referrer and the report of the Heritage Officer of the planning authority,
(f) the information submitted on behalf of the referrer regarding the scale, nature and layout of the subject premises, including photographs of the interior prior to the partial change of use, and the details submitted of the proposed internal layout thereof, and regarding the nature and range of goods proposed to be sold on the premises, and
(g) the report of the Inspector, including of his inspection of the subject premises:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) The proposed maintenance and conservation works to the upper floor façades of the two protected structures constitutes development.
(b) These maintenance and conservation works would not materially affect the character of the protected structures, or elements of the structures that contribute to their special architectural and historic interest, and therefore would constitute exempted development pursuant to Sections 4(1)(h) and 57(1) (b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended.
(c) The previous use of the ground floor of the subject premises was as a shop, with ancillary storage in the basement.
(d) The partial change of use of the ground floor of the subject premises as a “coffee shop” does not constitute use as a “shop” as defined in Article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, because the nature and range of goods sold, as outlined in the documentation submitted as part of the referral, consists primarily of the sale of sandwiches, cold/packaged ready-made food and other food (including beverages) for consumption off the premises, and the remaining area, as indicated in the inspection of the premises by the Inspector, is used primarily for the sale of similar items. Accordingly, the partial change of use is not subsidiary to any other retail use, and therefore does not come within the scope of paragraph (d) of Article 5(1).
(e) The change of use from the former retail use, wherein the primary use was the retail sale of goods, to the subject use as a “coffee shop” raises issues that are material in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, including the potential for litter and management of waste arising from the use of the premises for the sale of sandwiches and other food (including beverages) off the premises, and the potential for differing pedestrian and vehicular traffic as compared to the former retail use, and the change of use is, therefore, development within the meaning of Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended.
(f) There are no exemptions in the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, or in the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, by which this development would constitute exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, hereby decides that the proposed partial change of use from shop to coffee shop at number 12 Cross Street Upper, Galway is development and is not exempted development, and the proposed maintenance and conservation works to the upper floor façade at number 12 Cross Street and number 1 High Street, Galway (protected structures) is development and is exempted development.
In not accepting the recommendation of the Inspector that the subject partial change of use is not development, the Board had regard to his inspection of the subject premises, and noted that the nature and range of goods sold on the premises involves primarily the sale of sandwiches and other food (including beverages) for consumption off the premises, and that such sale is the main retail use and is not a subsidiary use, and that therefore the use of the premises in question as a “coffee shop” is not within the scope of the definition of a “shop” as set out in the Regulations. The Board was also satisfied that the change of use from the former retail use to the use as a “coffee shop”, as has taken place, raises external matters that are material in planning terms, and that therefore the change of use in this instance constitutes development. Furthermore, the Board noted the reliance, by the Inspector and by the referrer’s agent, on previous referral decisions by the Board, under file reference numbers RL3315 and RL2940, both of which had decided that a “coffee shop” was within the definition of a “shop”, but had not adverted to more recent decisions by the Board, in a large number of cases, whereby the Board had subsequently determined that use of a premises as a “coffee shop” was not within the definition of use as a “shop”, including file reference numbers RL3424, RL3425, RL3426 and RL3515, and that the nature and range of goods sold on the premises is a significant factor, and the presence, or absence, of customer seating and toilet facilities is not a determining factor in this regard.
Dated this 6th day of August 2019
ABP-303267-1
Fingal County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of a small area, comprising two connected rooms at ground level within an existing dwelling at Leaca Bán, Tooman, Lusk, County Dublin as a private oratory for religious worship exclusively for the resident priest Father George Albrecht and by individuals who are personally and individually known to Father Albrecht, in a manner which is incidental to the use of the property as a dwelling by the referrer is development:
AND WHEREAS Father George Albrecht care of Vincent JP Farry and Company Limited of Suite 180, 28 South Frederick Street, Dublin requested a declaration on this question from Fingal County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 4th day of December, 2018 stating that the matter was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Father George Albrecht care of Vincent JP Farry and Company Limited of Suite 180, 28 South Frederick Street, Dublin referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 18th day of December, 2018:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2(1), 3(1) and 4(1)(j) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended and, in particular, Class 7 of this Part,
(c) the planning history of the site,
(d) the scale, nature and layout of the oratory/ chapel, the description of the use carried on therein, including use by visiting members of the congregation and the services carried on therein, and
(e) the pattern of development on un-zoned land in this rural area:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) the use of part of the house as an oratory for religious worship does not constitute use as a house as defined at section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and therefore such use is a change of use,
(b) the change of use from use as part of a house to use as a private oratory, for use of members of the congregation, raises issues which are material in relation to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and this change of use constitutes a material change of use having regard to potential impacts on the amenity of the wider area, potential impacts on the amenity of adjoining residential property, access/car parking issues including the additional car parking requirements to serve such a use, access and vehicle manoeuvres within the site, pedestrian/vehicular conflicts and measures to address same, and is therefore development,
(c) the development does not come within the scope of section 4(1)(j) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, as the use as a private oratory for religious worship by members of the congregation in this instance is not considered incidental to the enjoyment of the house,
(d) the development would correspond to use for public worship or religious instruction as defined in Class 7(a) of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(e) there are no other provisions in the Act or Regulations whereby such development would be exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of part of a dwelling house for use as a private oratory for use of the visiting members of the congregation at Leaca Bán, Tooman, Lusk, County Dublin is development and is not exempted development. Dated this 1st day of May 2019
ABP-302542-18
Donegal County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of part of a dwelling house as a solicitors’ office at Beachside, Braade, Kincasslagh, County Donegal is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Geraldine Boyle of Beachside, Braade, Kincasslagh, County Donegal, requested a declaration on the question from Donegal County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 16th day of August, 2018 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Geraldine Boyle referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 11th day of September, 2018:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
a. sections 2(1), 3(1), and 4(1)(j) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
b. Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
c. the planning history of the site,
d. the scale, nature and layout of the solicitors’ office use, the description of the use carried on therein, including receptionist function, the availability of access to the premises by visiting members of the public, and
e. the presence of free-standing signage at the property, advertising a solicitors’ practice, as observed by the Inspector during his site visit:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded —
a. the use of part of the house as a solicitors’ office does not constitute use as a house as defined at Section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and therefore such use is a change of use;
b. the change of use from use as part of a house to use as a solicitors’ office, raises issues which are material in relation to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and this change of use constitutes a material change of use having regard to the considerations outlined above and is therefore development;
c. the development does not come within the scope of Section 4(1)(j) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, as the use as a solicitors’ office in this instance is not considered incidental to the enjoyment of the house,
d. he development would correspond to use as an office as defined in Class 2(b) of Part 4 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
e. there are no other provisions in the Act or Regulations whereby such development would be exempted in this instance;
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of part of a dwelling house as a solicitors’ office at Beachside, Braade, Kincasslagh, County Donegal is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 19th day of March 2019
27.RL.3542
Wicklow County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether (i) the use of the Laragh GAA grounds for an adventure racing event, including car parking (ii) the use of the Laragh GAA clubhouse as a briefing area associated with this event, at Laragh GAA grounds, Brockagh, Laragh, County Wicklow, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS Joe O’Neill, care of Frank O’Gallachóir and Associates Limited of 94 Rathdown Park, Greystones, County Wicklow requested a declaration on this question from Wicklow County Council, and the Council issued a declaration on the 11th day of January, 2017 stating that the matter is development and is exempted development.
AND WHEREAS Joe O’Neill referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála, on the 25th day of January, 2017.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to:
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 6, and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 37 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(d) The established use and planning history of the site,
(e) The submissions on file, including details of the nature and duration of the particular adventure racing event, and
(f) The pattern of development in the area.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) The established use of the GAA grounds is for sporting events;
(b) The use of the GAA grounds for car parking is a change of use from this established use;
(c) Having regard to the temporary and shortterm duration of this use, and the nature of the adventure racing event, it is considered that this change of use does not raise material planning issues and is, therefore, not a material change of use in this instance;
(d) The established use of the GAA clubhouse is ancillary to the sporting use of the overall grounds; and
(e) The use of the clubhouse for pre-race briefing relating to the adventure racing event is consistent with the established use of the clubhouse and, therefore, is not a change of use.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5(3)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, hereby decides that (i) the use of the Laragh GAA grounds for an adventure racing event, including car parking, is not development and (ii) the use of the Laragh GAA clubhouse as a briefing area associated with this event is not development, at Laragh GAA grounds, Brockagh, Laragh, County Wicklow.
Dated this 13th day of June 2018
27.RL.3521
Wicklow County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether (a) the conversion of 12 bedrooms to “recreation suites”, (b) the construction of a car park on former putting green area and (c) the construction of a car park on former first tee area at Charlesland Golf Club, Ballynerrin (ED Kilcoole), Greystones, County WIcklow is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Clive, Wilson and Lance Evans care of PD Lane Associates of 1 Church Road, Greystones, County Wicklow requested a declaration on the said question from Wicklow County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 2nd day of November, 2016 stating that the said matter is development but is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Clive, Wilson and Lance Evans referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 29th day of November, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(c) section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(d) article 6(1) and article 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(e) Parts 1 and 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(f) the planning history of the site, and
(g) the pattern of development in the area:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the permitted use is as hotel accommodation ancillary to and associated with the golf club use of the site as granted under planning register reference number 91/6781,
(b) the alterations to the hotel bedrooms involving the removal of internal partitions and ensuites constitute development as defined in Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and come within the scope of the exemptions provided for in section 4(1)(h) of the said Act being internal works which do not affect the external appearance of the structure,
(c) however, the conversion of all of the hotel bedrooms to “recreation suites” for the provision of an independent recreational and indoor sports facility for both members of the club and for visiting members of the public constitutes a change in the nature and character of the permitted use and an intensification of the use, and this change would raise material planning considerations, including traffic and parking implications and would, therefore, constitute a material change of use, which is development,
(d) this material change of use does not fall within the scope of any one of the classes of use specified in Part 4 of the Second Schedule of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and is not, therefore, exempted development,
(e) the works of alteration to the golf course comprising the construction of a car park on the former Tee Area and the adjoining grassed area constitute works that come within the meaning of Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and are, therefore, development,
(f) the works to the former Tee Area do not come within the scope of Class 34 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, not being works incidental to the maintenance or management of the golf course and are, therefore, not exempted development, and
(g) the construction of the car park on the former putting green is in accordance with the layout permitted under the permission granted under planning register reference number 91/6781 and is permitted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that (a) the conversion of 12 bedrooms to “recreation suites” is development and is not exempted development, (b) the construction of a car park on former putting green area is development which is permitted development under planning register reference number 91/6781 and (c) the construction of a car park on former tee area at Charlesland Golf Club, Ballynerrin (ED Kilcoole), Greystones, County Wicklow is development and is not exempted development:
Matters considered
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated this day 29th January 2018
29N.RL.3533
Dublin City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of 21 number car parking spaces at basement level for commercial use, having regard to specific conditions attached to planning register reference number 1409/05, at Castleforbes Square, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Castleforbes Square Management Limited care of Brock McClure Consultants of 63 York Road, Dún Laoghaire, County Dublin requested a declaration on this question from Dublin City Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 7thday of December, 2016 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS David Carson, Statutory Receiver for Danninger Limited, of Deloitte, 28 Earlsfort Terrace, Dublin care of Tom Phillips and Associates of 80 Harcourt Street, Dublin referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 10thday of January, 2017:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) article 6(1) and article 9(1)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) the planning history of the site, and in particular planning permission register reference number 1409/05, and condition number 3 of that permission, which required that at least one car parking space shall be assigned permanently to each residential unit and solely reserved for this purpose and which required that a parking management plan, indicating how spaces within the basement car park were to be assigned and segregated by use, was to be prepared for the site and submitted for the written agreement of Dublin City Council (which plan does not appear, based on the documentation submitted with the referral, to have been submitted to, and agreed with, the Council).
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) the change of use of car spaces within this basement area from use for the residential apartments in the subject development, as authorised by planning permission register reference number 1405/09, to use for commercial purposes, is a change of use which raises external planning issues, including patterns of parking on surrounding streets and the intensification of commuter traffic into the area in the light of the provisions of the Dublin City Development Plan, which seeks to limit such traffic in the city centre. Such change of use is therefore material, and constitutes development; and
(b) Having regard to the terms and conditions of planning permission register reference number 1405/09, and in particular condition 3 of that permission, any exemption that would otherwise apply to such development is restricted, pursuant to article 9 (1)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Regulations, as it would contravene condition 3, and be inconsistent with the use specified, and is therefore not exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of 21 number car parking spaces at basement level for commercial use, having regard to specific conditions attached to planning register reference number 1409/05, at Castleforbes Square, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dates this 9thday of May 2017.
04.RL.3492
Cork County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of the former Árdscoil for educating/training accountants at former Árdscoil Phobail Bheanntrai, Bantry, County Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Minehane Chartered Accountants care of McCutcheon Halley Walsh of 6 Joyce House, Barrack Square, Ballincollig, County Cork requested a declaration on this question from Cork County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 25th day of May, 2016 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Minehane Chartered Accountants referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 21st day of June, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Article 5(i) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, in relation to the definition of a school, and
(c) Articles 6(1), 9(1) and the Classes of Use set out in Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the established use of the subject premises is as a school,
(b) on the basis of the documentation submitted by the parties to this referral, the proposed use of part of the premises for the education/training of accountants would not consist solely or primarily of use for training/education, but would primarily consist of uses to which Class 2 and/or Class 3, as set out in Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, apply, with education/training being a subsidiary use,
(c) the proposed use would therefore constitute a change of use from the established use of the subject premises as a school. Having regard to the nature of such use, including hours of operation, and the potential for differing patterns of traffic usage, which would be different to the established use as a school, it is considered that these issues raise external matters that would be material in planning terms, and accordingly the proposed use would constitute a material change of use in this particular instance, and would therefore constitute development, and
(d) there are no exemptions provided, in the Planning Acts and Regulations, by which such material change of use would constitute exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of the former Árdscoil for educating/training accountants at former Árdscoil Phobail Bheanntrai, Bantry, County Cork is development and is not exempted development. Dated this 24th day of October 2016.
27.RL.3507
Wicklow County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of part of a school building for use as a fitness centre/gym is or is not a material change of use, and is or is not development or is or is not exempted development at the former De La Salle School, Wicklow Town, County Wicklow:
AND WHEREAS Match Fit Fitness Limited care of Michael Connolly Architects of 15 Yachtsmans Point, Dunbur, Wicklow Town, County Wicklow requested a declaration on this question from Wicklow County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 13th day of September, 2016 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Match Fit Fitness Limited referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 6th day of October, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, in relation to the definition of a school,
(c) Articles 6(1), 9(1) and 10, Classes 15 and 20C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 and the Classes of Use set out in Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(d) the planning history of the site and the documentation submitted with the referral.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) the established use of the subject premises is as a school,
(b) this use as a school had a particular pattern of usage, including traffic movements at certain times during the morning and afternoons on weekdays, and within term time. The use of part of the school as a fitness centre/gym has a differing pattern of usage, which is not limited to those hours or times of the year;
(c) the use of part of the school as a fitness centre/gym would not be ancillary to the established use of the subject premises as a school, but would be a separate and substituting use;
(d) the use of part of the school as a fitness centre/gym, therefore, raises issues which would be external matters that are material in planning terms and accordingly this use constitutes a material change of use in this particular instance and, is, therefore, development;
(e) this use does not come within the scope of Class 15 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as it is not an occasional use, and, having regard to the documentation submitted as part of the referral, does not come within the scope of Class 20C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(f) there are no other exemptions provided in the Planning Acts and Regulations, by which the development would constitute exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of part of a school building for use as a fitness centre/gym is a material change of use which is development and is not exempted development at the former De La Salle School, Wicklow Town, County Wicklow.
Dated this 17th day of February 2017.
08.RL.3361
Kerry County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of part of the “Kerry Mineral Water Supply Company Limited” building as a craft brewery at Flesk Road, Killarney, County Kerry is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the Killarney Brewing Company Limited care of Cunnane Stratton Reynolds of Copley Hall, Cotters Street, Cork, requested a declaration on the said question from Kerry County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 8th day of May, 2015 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Killarney Brewing Company Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 27th day of May, 2015:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to–
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) the planning history of the site with particular reference to planning register reference number T.P. 13/205412, and
(d) the submissions made by the referrers including the applicant’s response dated the 18th day of November, 2015 to the notice issued by An Bord Pleanala under section 132 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the referrer has not provided sufficient information to satisfy the Board that the pre- 1964 industrial use of the building was not abandoned post 2002,
(b) since 2002 the building has been used for uses including warehouse and office use neither of which uses come within the scope of class 4, Light Industrial building of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) the resumption of a light industrial use in part of the building, and the use of the building for purposes other than the said Class 4 use, where subdivision of the building has also occurred, is considered to be a change of use, which would have external planning implications and which change is, therefore, material,
(d) the original established industrial use for brewing related activities was extinguished by either the partial implementation of planning register reference number T.P. 13/205412, for office use, or by the change of use of a substantial portion of the premises to office use without the benefit of planning permission, and
(e) in the circumstances, the recommencement of brewing use is development by reason of being a material change in use and for which there is no express exemption provided in the legislation:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of part of the “Kerry Mineral Water Supply Company Limited” building as a craft brewery at Flesk Road, Killarney, County Kerry is development and is not exempted development. Dated 23 May 2016.
29N.RL.3301
Dublin City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of college grounds as a commercial car park related to events at Croke Park Stadium at Clonliffe College, Clonliffe Road, Drumcondra, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Peter Branagan of 145 Clonliffe Road, Dublin requested a declaration from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration within the terms of the question on the 18th day of August, 2014 stating that the said matter is not development:
AND WHEREAS the said Peter Branagan referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 10th day of September, 2014:
AND WHEREAS the Board, having regard to the documentation on file and in particular the content of the referrer’s original submission to the planning authority and his submission to the Board, considered it appropriate to reformulate the question as follows:- “Whether the intensification of the use of college grounds at Clonliffe College, Clonliffe Road, Drumcondra, Dublin as a car park on event/match days/nights, relating to events and/or matches at Croke Park Stadium is or is not development and is or is not exempted development”
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had particular regard to:
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, and,
(c) the submissions of the parties to the referral:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanala has concluded that:
(a) the use of college grounds as a car park constitutes a change of use of these lands,
(b) the use of the college grounds as a car park may, or may not, on the basis of the submissions made in connection with this referral, have taken place prior to the coming into force of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, on the 1stday of October 1964,
(c) on the basis of the submissions made in connection with this referral, this historic use of the college grounds as a car park has intensified over and above its level of usage prior to the appointed day in 1964,
(d) this intensification has resulted in material impacts on the surrounding area, including increased traffic movements along Clonliffe Road,
(e) such impacts are considered to be material in planning terms, and therefore, the intensification of use in question constitutes a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use for the purposes of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and is, therefore, development, and
(f) there are no exemptions provided for in the said Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, by which such use as a car park would be exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the intensification of the use of college grounds at Clonliffe College, Clonliffe Road, Drumcondra, Dublin as a car park on event/ match days/nights, relating to events and/or matches at Croke Park is development and is not exempted development. Dated this 22 January 2015
13.RL.3070
LIMERICK COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the continued use of a site as a car dismantling facility and for the storage of end of life vehicles by virtue of its long established use on the site at Cahernarry, Scart, Ballyneety, County Limerick is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Dave O’Riordan of Cahernarry, Scart, Ballyneety, County Limerick requested a declaration on the said question from Limerick County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 20th day of December, 2012 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Dave O’Riordan referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 24th day of January, 2013:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 3(1), 3(2)(b)(iii) and 4(1)(j) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 10(1) and 10(2)(b)(v) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) section 157(4)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the use of the site, which was originally part of the garden of a residential dwelling, for use as a car dismantling facility and for the storage of end of life vehicles, constitutes a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use and is, therefore, development within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) there are no provisions in the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and in the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 made thereunder whereby the said change of use is exempted development,
(c) on the basis of the evidence submitted on the file, the Board is satisfied that the said continued use of a site as a car dismantling facility and the storage of end of life vehicles did not commence before the 1st day of October, 1964, being the operative date of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, and that the said continued use is not an established use, and
(d) the provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 which prevent the issuance of a warning letter or enforcement notice, or the taking of proceedings for any offence under the Act in respect of unauthorised development after a period of seven years from the commencement of that development, do not alter that status of that development nor do they establish it as exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said continued use of a site as a car dismantling facility and for the storage of end of life vehicles by virtue of its long established use on the site at Cahernarry, Scart, Ballyneety, County Limerick is development and is not exempted development.
Dated June 6, 2013.
88.RL.2959
CORK COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the proposed change of use of an existing car showroom to use as a shop/retail use at Nyhan Motors, The Bypass, Cloghmacsimon, Bandon, County Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS C.N. Nyhan care of McCutcheon Mulcahy of 6 Joyce House, Barrack Square, Ballincollig, County Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Cork County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 16th day of November, 2011 stating that the said matter is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said C.N.Nyhan referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 13th day of December, 2011:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3, 4 and 34(4) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 5, 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 14(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the said Regulations, and
(d) the planning history of the site, in particular, the requirements of condition number 4 (and the drawing referred to therein) attached to the decision of Cork County Council under planning register reference number 04/4380:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the proposed change of use to use as a shop is a material change of use and constitutes development within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) the proposed change of use comes within the scope of the exemption provided in Class 14(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) the proposed change of use to use as a shop does not constitute exempted development by reason of Article 9(1)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the proposed change of use of an existing car showroom to use as a shop/retail use at Nyhan Motors, The Bypass, Cloghmacsimon, Bandon, County Cork is development and is not exempted development.
Dated April 20, 2013.
09.RL.2992
KILDARE COUNTY
WHEREAS questions have arisen as to whether, at Unit number 2, Riversdale House, Main Street, Leixlip, County Kildare,
(a) the change of use from a shop granted under planning register reference number 88/996 to use as a take-away is or is not development, and
(b) the signage/branding changes to the front elevation of the premises are or are not development:
AND WHEREAS the said questions were referred to An Bord Pleanála by Kildare County Council on the 28th day of March, 2012:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to–
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) article 9 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1977,
(c) Class 1 of Part IV of the Third Schedule of the said Regulations,
(d) articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(e) Parts 2 and 4 of Schedule 2 of the said Regulations,
(f) the planning history of the subject site, and
(g) the nature and range of goods sold:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that–
(a) the current use of the premises as a take-away commenced in 2006, is a change of use that is material;
(b) there are no exemptions under the current exempted development provisions which would provide for this material change of use;
(c) the changes to the shopfront elevations would not be out of character with the area and would not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or the neighbouring structures, and
(d) the projecting sign at first floor level is development, for which there is no exemption under the current exempted development provisions:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that, at Unit number 2, Riversdale House, Main Street, Leixlip, County Kildare,
(a) the said change of use from a shop to use as a take-away is development and is not exempted development, and
(b)
(i) the said changes to the shopfront at ground floor level is exempted development, and
(ii) the said projecting external sign at first floor level is not exempted development.
Dated April 4, 2013.
08.RL.2915
KERRY COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of a commercial unit permitted as retail warehousing to convenience retail use at Mile High Retail Park, Manor East, Tralee, County Kerry is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Anthony and Declan Costello care of Cunnane Stratton Reynolds of Copley Hall, Cotters Street, Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Kerry County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 27th day of July, 2011 stating that the said matter is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Anthony and Declan Costello referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 23rd day of August, 2011:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a)sections 2, 3, 4, 26 and 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, as amended,
(b)Article 8 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994,
(c)the grant of outline permission under planning register reference number 3163/00,
(d)the grants of planning approval under planning register reference numbers 04/2655, 05/2016 and 06/1398,
(e)the permission for retention granted under planning register reference number 07/2459,
(f)the development as implemented, and
(g)the “Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities” issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a)the grant of outline permission was for three buildings of mixed use commercial (warehouse / retail) and did not restrict the use of the permitted buildings to the sale of comparison or bulky goods as defined in Annex 1 of the “Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities” issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in January, 2005,
(b)the grants of approval were for two mixed use commercial/retail warehouse buildings; these approvals were implemented as retail warehouse buildings and the approved use of the buildings is as retail warehouses, and
(c)the change of use from retail warehouse to convenience retail is a change of use that is considered to be a material change of use, giving rise to new planning considerations, in relation to traffic and the impact on the vitality and vibrancy of town, district and neighbourhood centres:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of a commercial unit permitted as retail warehousing to convenience retail use at Mile High Retail Park, Manor East, Tralee, County Kerry is development and is not exempted development.
Dated August 9, 2012
28.RL.2903
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a change of use from medical to small animal veterinary medicine and surgery at Endsleigh Lodge, Douglas Road, Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Cork City Council on the 12th day of July, 2011:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a)sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b)article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 to 2011,
(c)Class 8 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(d)the nature of the uses, and
(e)the general character of the area.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—(a) a veterinary practice dealing with the medical treatment of animals is a change of use from the medical practice that currently occupies the premises, (b) this change of use is considered to be material change of use having regard to the impact on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area arising from the veterinary practice, in particular, in relation to noise, and (c) such a change of use does not come within the scope of the provisions for exempted development as set out in the Planning and Development Acts, 2000 to 2011, or the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 to 2011.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that a change of use from medical to small animal veterinary medicine and surgery at Endsleigh Lodge, Douglas Road, Cork is development and is not exempted development.
Dated November 15, 2011
29N.RL.2827
DUBLIN CITY
Planning Authority Reference Number: 0278/10 WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a change of use from a restaurant to a retail shop at the Regency Airport Hotel, Swords Road, Dublin is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Colm Maguire of Apartment 317, Gracepark Manor, Drumcondra, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 9th day of December, 2010 stating that the said matter is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Colm Maguire referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 16th day of December, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) class 14 (c) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the 2001 Regulations, and
(d) Article 5 of the 2001 Regulations as amended by Article 3 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the said change of use comes within the scope of Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, in accordance with Article 6 of the said Regulations relating to exempted development,
(b) the development does not give rise to traffic hazard or obstruction of road users due to the provision of a safe access, ample parking and a traffic signal controlled junction to govern turning movements from the Swords Road, and, therefore, is not subject to the restrictions as set out under Article 9 of the 2001 Regulations, and
(c) the development is not restricted by Article 10 of the 2001 Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use from a restaurant to a retail shop at the Regency Airport Hotel, Swords Road, Dublin is exempted development.
Dated April 28, 2011
28.RL.2753
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of The Elysian car park other than solely to serve the permitted development (as set out in permission T.P. 04/28877) is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS O’Flynn Construction care of McCutcheon Mulcahy of 6 Joyce House, Barrack’s Square, Ballincollig, County Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Cork City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 18th day of May, 2010 stating that the said matter is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said O’Flynn Construction referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 14th day of June, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) the planning history of the site and in particular the terms of Cork City Council’s condition number 7 of permission under planning register reference number T.P. 04/28877:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the said use of the car park by the general public, other than solely to serve the permitted development and 6, Lapps Quay, constitutes a change in the use of the development permitted under planning register reference number TP 04/28877,
(b) the change of use is considered a material change of use, because the implications for the availability of parking spaces to serve the needs of users and visitors to the Elysian development and 6, Lapps Quay, and the external effects arising from the changed car park use, particularly the loss of parking spaces serving the users of the aforementioned developments with consequential potential for increased on-street car parking in nearby streets,
(c) the said development does not come within the scope of section 4 of the Planning and Development Acts, 2000-2010 because it does not fall into any of the categories specified in the said section 4, and
(d) The use of the car park other than solely to serve the permitted uses authorised by the planning permission T.P. 04/28877 would contravene condition 7 of that permission.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of the car park other than solely to serve the permitted uses, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated November 25, 2010
06S.RL.2473
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the intensification of the use of a quarry, including the use of explosives for blasting, the laying of material for a new road and a new entrance on lands at Aghfarrell, Brittas, County Dublin are or are not development or are or are not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Dublin Mountain Conservation and Environmental Group care of Michael McCoy of Ballinascorney Upper, Brittas, County Dublin requested a declaration on the question from South Dublin County Council and no declaration issued by the planning authority:
AND WHEREAS the said Dublin Mountain Conservation and Environmental Group referred the question for decision to An Bord Pleanála on the 17th day of September, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) the planning history of the site, including the submission made in connection with planning register reference number SD07A/0276, An Bord Pleanála reference number PL 06S.231371, and
(c) High Court Judgement Ref. No. [1978] ILRM 85 (Frank Patterson and Eily Patterson v. Martha Murphy and Trading Services Limited):
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) insufficient evidence has been put forward to enable the Board to reach a decision in relation to the planning status of the laying of material for a road and of a new entrance,
(b) the intensification of the use of the quarry, and including the use of explosives for blasting, constitutes the carrying out of operations which are materially different to the development carried out on the lands before the 1st day of October 1964, by reason of the nature and intensity of the operations amounting to the making of a material change in the use of the land,
(c) the change of use is considered to be a material change of use and the said material change of use constitutes development,
(d) there is no provision in the Planning Acts or Regulations by which the said development is exempted development, and
(e) no permission under the provisions of either the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963-1999, or the Planning and Development Acts, 2000-2010, has been granted authorising the said development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (b) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the intensification of the use of the quarry, and including the use of explosives for blasting, at Aghfarrell, Brittas, County Dublin, are development and are not exempted development,
Dated December 24, 2010
06.RL.2615
DUN LAOGHAIRE-RATHDOWN COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the development of car parking facilities, drainage and change of ground levels at Williamstown, Circus Field, Blackrock Parklands, County Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Victor Boylan of 25 Grange Crescent, Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 2nd day of February, 2009 stating that the said development was exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Victor Boylan referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 6th day of February, 2009:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the provision of this car park and associated drainage works and changes of levels constitute “works” that comes within the meaning of “development” in Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act,2000,
(b) the provision of this car park, on lands which were formerly grassed areas and used principally for open space purposes, constitutes a change of use of such lands, which change is material in planning terms, and therefore comes within the meaning of ‘development’ in Section 3(1) of the said Act, and
(c) the provision of this car park and associated drainage and changes of level was carried out by Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, and the lands concerned are located within the functional area of the Council, and therefore comes within the scope of Section 4 (1)(b) of the said Act:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said development of car parking facilities drainage and change of ground levels at Williamstown, Circus Field, Blackrock Parklands, County Dublin is development and is exempted development
Dated April 22, 2010
06S. RL.2572
SOUTH DUBLIN COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the proposed use of Unit 4 Belgard Retail Park, Belgard Road, Tallaght, Dublin by Maplins for retailing electrical goods is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS B and Q (Ireland) Limited care of John Spain Associates Limited of 10 Lower Mount Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from South Dublin County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 11thday of August, 2008 stating that the said development was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said B and Q (Ireland) Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 5th day of September, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3, and 4(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2006,
(b) article 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 -2007,
(c) class 1 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001- 2007,
(d) the planning history of the site, particularly condition number 4 of the permission granted under planning register reference number SD06A/0493, whereby it is required that the range of goods sold in the retail units shall be restricted to bulky household goods and goods generally sold in bulk, including carpets and floor coverings, furniture, electrical goods, computers and DIY items including building materials and garden equipment, and
(e) the range of goods sold by Maplins:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the range of goods sold by Maplins does not fall within the meaning of “bulky household goods and goods generally sold in bulk, including carpets and floor coverings, furniture, electrical goods, computers and DIY items including building materials and garden equipment”. In reaching that conclusion, the Board noted that the retailing activity carried out by Maplins predominantly includes the sale of small scale electrical and electronic equipment and small scale accessories,
(b) the proposed use would contravene the provisions of condition number 4 attached to the permission granted under planning register reference number SD06A/0493,
(c) the proposed use would, therefore, constitute a material change of use which is development, and
(d) the proposed use would, by virtue of the provisions of Article 10(1) of the Regulations, not be exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the proposed use of Unit 4 Belgard Retail Park, Belgard Road, Tallaght, Dublin by Maplins for retailing electrical goods is development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated March 31, 2009.
16.RL.2537
MAYO COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from a chemical plant/industrial use to use for the purposes of a waste transfer and sorting station at Tawnaghmore Lower, Killala, County Mayo constitutes a material change of use and is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS McGrath Industrial Waste Limited care of Earth Science Partnership of James Street, Westport, County Mayo requested a declaration on the said question from Mayo County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 1st day of May, 2008 stating that the said development was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said McGrath Industrial Waste Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 12th day of May, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) the definition of “industrial process” as set out in article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) article 10(1) of the said Regulations and the classes of use specified in Pt 4 of Sch.2 to these Regulations:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the process involves the storage, sorting and bailing of segregated waste and is not an industrial process as defined by the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and
(b) the introduction of this waste segregation process constitutes a material change of use:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use from a chemical plant/industrial use to use for the purposes of a waste storage and waste segregation at Tawnaghmore Lower, Killala, County Mayo is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated November 13, 2008.
17. RL 2398
MEATH COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of portion of public house to retail shop at The Warrenstown Arms, Cross Keys, Warrenstown, Drumree, County Meath is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS James Murphy care of Tom Phillips and Associates of Marlinstown Office Park, Mullingar, County Westmeath requested a declaration on the said question from Meath County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on October 26, 2006 stating that the said change of use was development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said James Murphy referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on November 21, 2006:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) article 9 (1)(a)(iii) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and
(c) Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the change of use from public house to shop would generally come within the scope of class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, but
(b) the particular proposed change of use, by reason of a change in the pattern and an increase in the number of vehicular movements to and from the site, which has no defined entrance/egress point, along the heavily-trafficked R154 Regional Road at a location where the 80 km/h speed limit applies, would endanger public safety by reason of traffic hazard or obstruction of road users, and
(c) therefore, by reason of the provisions of Article 9 (1)(a)(iii) of the said Regulations, the change of use cannot avail of the exempted development provisions of the said class 14:
NOW THEREFORE the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of portion of a licensed premises to shop at The Warrenstown Arms, Warrenstown, Cross Keys, Drumree, County Meath is development and is not exempted development.444
06D.RL.2317
DUN LAOGHAIRE-RATHDOWN COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of six of the eight apartments within an apartment block situated at the Merrion Grove apartment complex, Stillorgan Road, Stillorgan, County Dublin to student accommodation, is a material change of use and thereby constitutes development and is or is not exempted development, and whether the internal alterations to these apartments for such use are or are not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the Merrion Grove Management Company care of Manahan Planners of 38 Dawson Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on January 16, 2006 stating that the said development was exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Merrion Grove Management Company referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on February 9, 2006:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) articles 5(1) and 10(1)(b) and (c) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and
(c) the planning history of the site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the said change of use from apartments to single purpose student accommodation constitutes a material change of use, having regard to potential impacts on the residential amenities of properties in the vicinity and the amenities of the area,
(b) no provision is made, in the Planning and Development Act 2000 or the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, by which the said change of use would constitute exempted development, and
(c) the internal alterations to the apartments, of themselves, come within the scope of Section 4(1)(h) of the said Act:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of these apartments to student accommodation is development and is not exempted development, but that that the internal alterations to these apartments are exempted development.
Dated November 6, 2006.
08.RL.2268
KERRY COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from industrial use permitted under planning register reference number 2871/79 to use for the purposes of consolidating and processing dry recyclable materials at Gortacollopa, Fossa, Killarney, County Kerry constitutes a material change of use and is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS K.S.P. Recycling Services Limited of Fossa, Killarney, County Kerry requested a declaration on the said question from Kerry County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on June 20, 2005 stating that the said development was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said K.S.P. Recycling Services Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on July 18, 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) the definition of “industrial process” in Article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) Article 10(1) of the said Regulations and the classes of use specified in Part 4 of the Second Schedule to those Regulations,
(d) the permission granted by the planning authority for a precision engineering factory under planning register reference number 2871/79 together with subsequent alterations/extensions, and
(e) the division of the factory into separate units:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the process involved (consolidating and processing dry recyclable materials) constitutes waste minimisation and is not an industrial process as defined by the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(b) the introduction of this process (consolidating and processing dry recyclable materials) does constitute a material change of use:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said the change of use from industrial use permitted under planning register reference number 2871/79 to use for the purposes of consolidating and processing dry recyclable materials at Gortacollopa, Fossa, Killarney, County Kerry is development and not exempted development.
Dated February 23, 2006
09.RL.2224
KILDARE COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of two dwellings to residences for up to six persons and two carers at Cloncurry Cross, Enfield, County Kildare is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Denis Laverty care of RPS McHugh of 16 Herbert Place, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Kildare County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on January 21, 2005 stating that the said change of use was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Denis Laverty referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on February 14, 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) class 14(f) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) the planning history of the site with particular reference to planning register reference numbers 89/097, 89/968 and 94/976:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) there are two existing authorised houses at the address, and
(b) the change of use of the houses comes within the scope of Class 14(f) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of two dwellings to residences for up to six persons and two carers at Cloncurry Cross, Enfield, County Kildare is exempted development.
27.RL.2179
WICKLOW COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of a portion of the grocery store for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises at Glendalough Stores, Laragh East, County Wicklow is or is not development or is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS Peter and Fiona Porter care of Vincent J.P. Farry of Suite 180, 28 South Frederick Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Wicklow County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on July 8, 2004 stating that the said use was not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said Peter and Fiona Porter referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on July 16, 2004:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and
(b) articles 5 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001; and
(c) the existing layout of the premises.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises is in this particular case subsidiary to the principal shop use; and
(b) the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises to the limited extent which occurs at Glendalough Stores does not on this account result in a material change of use from the use of this shop.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of a portion of the grocery store for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises is not development.
November 18, 2004
04.RL.2099
CORK COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether development comprising the change of use from the permitted garage/store and depot for the servicing of cranes, engines, jibs and the like to use for maintenance, conversion, open storage and distribution/hire of containers at Brooklodge, Glanmire, County Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Calnan Containers (Ireland) Limited care of McCutcheon Hogan of The Lodge, Proby’s Quay, Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Cork County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on September 25, 2003 stating that the said development is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Calnan Containers (Ireland) Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on October 21, 2003:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) Sections 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) Article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) Article 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, with particular reference to class 22 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations,
(d) Article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, with particular reference to class 4 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations, and
(e) the planning history of the site with particular reference to permission granted under planning register reference number S/80/1942:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the permitted use is a use within the said class 4 and the existing use is also a use within class 4;
(b) having regard to the existing unauthorised extension to accommodate a spray painting facility associated with the existing use on the site, being works of development and not exempted development, the change of use would not comply with the provisions of Article 10(1)(a) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001; and
(c) the storage of containers on site does not comply with the conditions and limitations provided in column 2 of class 22 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is development and is not exempted development.
Dated March 3, 2004
06S.RL.2018
SOUTHDUBLIN COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of the restaurant for the sale of small quantities of hot food for consumption off the premises at Unit 2, Ballyowen Shopping Centre, Lucan, County Dublin is or is not development or exempted development.
AND WHEREAS Claude Borza care of Beauchamps Solicitors of Dollard House, Wellington Quay, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from South Dublin County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on August 9, 2002 stating that the said development is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said Claude Borza referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on September 4, 2002.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and
(b) the existing layout of the premises, particularly at ground floor level.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded-
(a) that the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises constitutes a significant element in the use of the premises,
(b) that the existing use of the premises is for a dual purpose as a restaurant and as a take away/delivery service of hot food for consumption off the premises, and
(c) that the use of the restaurant for the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises constitutes a material change of use of the premises.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of the restaurant for the sale of small quantities of hot food for consumption off the premises is development and is not exempted development.
Dated April 3, 2003.
06F.RF.1057
COUNTY FINGAL
WHEREASa question has arisen as to whether the change of use from restaurant to a licensed restaurant at 1, 2, 3 The Green, Malahide, County Dublin is or is not development.
AND WHEREASthe said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by O’Neill Town Planning of Harbour Road, Howth, County Dublin on behalf of Townyard House Management Company on October 15, 2001.
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4of the sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963,
(b) articles 8, 9 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, as amended with particular reference to Class 13 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule to these Regulations and Class 2 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to these Regulations, and
(c) permission granted for a restaurant use at ground and first floor by Fingal County Council pursuant to planning register reference number F99A/0300.
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
The change of use from a restaurant permitted pursuant to planning register reference number F99A/ 0300 to a licensed restaurant would not constitute a material change of use.
NOW THEREFOREAn Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is not development.
Dated May 10, 2002.
29S.RF.0963
DUBLIN COUNTY BOROUGH
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a change of use of premises from a factory for purposes of heavy component manufacturing for telephone systems and computers to use as a factory for fish preparation at 76–78 Cork Street, Dublin is or is not development or exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Brian Meehan and Associates of 13 Fitzwilliam Square, Dublin on behalf of Hanlons Limited on August 4, 2000:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 3 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963, and
(b) articles 8 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, with particular reference to the definitions of Industrial Building, Light Industrial Building and Industrial Process and to class 4 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to these Regulations:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that–
(a) the premises in question was used prior to 1998 as an industrial building by Ardmore Engineering
(b) the premises is currently used as an industrial building by Hanlons Limited
(c) the change of use, from the previous use referred to above, to the current use, having regard to the nature of the processes involved and to the pattern of emissions associated therewith, is a material change of use, and
(d) the current use of this building does not fall within class 4 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use is development and is not exempted development.
Dated April 3, 2001.
06F.RF.0792
COUNTY FINGAL
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether (a) the change of use from car service area to use as car tyre service area and (b) the change of use from car valeting area to car service area at Kinsealy Service Station, Malahide Road Kinsealy, County Dublin are or are not development or exempted development within the meaning of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 to 1993:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by A.T. Forde and Associates of 3 Shenick Avenue, Skerries, County Dublin on behalf of Michael Martin on the 25th day of October, 1996:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to —
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the 1963 Act,
(b) articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994, and
(c) the permission granted by Fingal County Council under Planning Register Reference Number F93A/0081 on the 24th day of January, 1994 and the decision made by An Bord Pleanála under Reference 06F.099123 (Planning Register Reference Number F96A/0153) on the 9th day of October, 1996:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that neither of the said changes of use gives rise to a material change of use which constitutes development within the meaning of section 3 of the 1963 Act:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act hereby decides that the said changes of use are not development and that therefore the question as to whether the changes of use are exempted development does not arise.
Dated this 24th day of February 1997
ABP-309803-21
Kildare County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a change of use from shop to ‘coffee shop’, where the sale of coffee to visiting members of the public is the primary use of this speciality retail shop and the sale of hot chocolate, minerals, pastries, sandwiches, and rolls to visiting members of the public is a subsidiary retail use at Unit 3, 6 Railway Terrace, Naas, County Kildare, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Ziba Coffee Shop Limited care of Maguire and Associates of 6 Railway Terrace, Dublin Road, Naas, County Kildare requested a declaration on the question from Kildare County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 24thday of February, 2021 stating that the matter was development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Ziba Coffee Shop Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 22ndday of March, 2021:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a)sections 2(1), 3(1), and 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b)article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c)Part 4 of Schedule 2 to those Regulations,
(d)the planning history of the site,
(e)the information submitted on behalf of the referrer regarding the nature and range of goods to be sold on the premises,
(f)relevant Board decisions, and
(g)the report of the Inspector:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a)the previous use of the premises was a shop,
(b)the use of the premises as a ‘coffee shop’ does not constitute use as a shop as defined in article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, because the nature and range of goods sold, as outlined in the documentation submitted as part of the referral, consists of hot chocolate, minerals, pastries, sandwiches, and rolls to visiting members of the public is not regarded as a subsidiary use to any other retail use, and therefore does not come within the scope of paragraph (d) of article 5 (1) of those Regulations.
(c)the use of the subject premises as a “coffee shop” does not come within the scope of the other elements of the definition of a “shop” as set out under paragraphs (a) to (c) and (e) to (i) of article 5(1) of those Regulations,
(d)the change of use from a shop to use as a coffee shop raises issues that are material in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, including the potential for litter and management of waste arising from the use of the premises for the sale of coffee, sandwiches and other beverages and food for consumption off the premises, odour issues and the potential for differing pedestrian and vehicular traffic as compared to the former shop use, and the change of use is, therefore, development within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and
(e)there are no exemptions in the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, or in the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, by which this development would constitute exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that a change of use from shop to ‘coffee shop’, where the sale of coffee to visiting members of the public is the primary use of this speciality retail shop and the sale of hot chocolate, minerals, pastries, sandwiches, and rolls to visiting members of the public is a subsidiary retail use at Unit 3, 6 Railway Terrace, Naas, County Kildare, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 29thday of July 2021
ABP-303958-19
Wicklow County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the provision of a landscaped amphitheatre space at Powerscourt Hotel, Enniskerry, County Wicklow is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Sugarloaf Investment Property Holdings care of Tom Phillips and Associates of 80 Harcourt Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the question from Wicklow County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 21st day of February, 2019 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Sugarloaf Investment Property Holdings referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 15th day of March, 2019:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2(1), 3(1) and 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) article 6 and Class 33 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) the planning history of the site, and
(d) the pattern of development in the area:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the landscaped amphitheatre space –
(a) is development in accordance with section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) does not fall within the scope of section 4(1)(h) of that Act, as the planning history of the site indicates that the development has taken place beyond the area that was previously used as a helipad and is outside of what is considered to be the permitted structure of the hotel,
(c) is a material change of use as the functional use of the space for events associated with the hotel is a use for which there is no permission at this location,
(d) in so far as the works element is concerned, does not fall with the scope of Class 33 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and
(e) there are no other exempted development provisions that would apply to the landscaped amphitheatre space:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the provision of a landscaped amphitheatre space on these lands, at the garden area of Powerscourt Hotel, Enniskerry, County Wicklow is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 30thday of March 2021
ABP-305008-19
Kildare County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of a building formerly operating as a General Practice surgery for use as a methadone clinic at Kildare Heath Centre, Tully Road, Kildare Town, County Kildare is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Tameric Investments care of David Mulcahy Planning Consultants Limited of 67 The Old Mill Race, Athgarvan, Newbridge, County Kildare requested a declaration on this question from Kildare County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 1stday of July, 2019 stating that the matter was not development and therefore the question of exempted development does not arise:
AND WHEREAS Tameric Investments referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 26thday of July, 2019:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
(a)section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b)article 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended
(c)Class 8 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of those Regulations,
(d)the planning history of the site,
(e)the nature of use as a methadone clinic, and
(f)the submissions made in connection with the referral:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a)the permitted use on this site can be considered to be a Health Centre and therefore a class of use coming within the scope of Class 8(a) of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(b)both the use as a General Practice surgery and the use as a methadone clinic are consistent with the permitted use as a Health Centre, and
(c)the change of use from a General Practice surgery to use as a methadone clinic is not a material change of use and, therefore, is not development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from a General Practice surgery to use as a methadone clinic at Kildare Health Centre, Tully Road, Kildare Town, County Kildare is not development.
Dated this 27th day of February 2020
ABP-304696-19
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of an office building to use as an embassy at Saint Helier’s, Stillorgan Park, Blackrock, County Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Dorothy Bergin, John O’Malley and Raymond O’Malley care of Kiaran O’Malley and Company Limited of Saint Helier’s, Saint Helier’s Copse, Stillorgan Park, Blackrock, County Dublin requested a declaration on this question from Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 20th day of May, 2019 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Dorothy Bergin, John O’Malley and Raymond O’Malley referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 17th day of June, 2019:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and in particular Classes 2 and 3 of that Part,
(d) the planning history of the site, including the existing and permitted use of the site, and the nature of the proposed use as an embassy,
(e) previous planning decisions of An Bord Pleanála under file reference numbers PL 29S.227769 and PL 29S.227770, and
(f) relevant case law, and in particular the judgement of the High Court in the case of Derek Quinlan – v – An Bord Pleanála & Anor [2009] IEHC 228:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the permitted use of the subject premises, under planning permission register reference number ZA182 (An Bord Pleanála appeal reference number PL6/5/68454) is as offices, together with a caretaker’s flat. Such office use would come within the scope of Class 3 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(b) the change of use of the premises to use as an embassy would be a factual change of use, and this change of use raises material issues relevant to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, including differing levels of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and the potential for impacts on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties through altered hours of operation, including evening functions and other activity, and would, therefore, constitute a material change of use, and is development,
(c) having regard to case law, and to the nature of uses carried out in an embassy, it is considered that an embassy does not constitute an office and therefore does not come within the scope of Class 3 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, or any other Class of Use set out in Part 4,
(d) accordingly, the development in this instance cannot avail of the exemption provided for under Article 10 (1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(e) there are no other provisions, in the Act and Regulations, by which the development in this case would constitute exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of an office building to use as an embassy at Saint Helier’s, Stillorgan Park, Blackrock, County Dublin is development and is not exempted development. Dated this 27th day of October 2019
ABP-301688-18
Dublin City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether conversion of the premises to a supported homeless accommodation facility at numbers 57, 59 and 61 Cabra Road (Protected Structures), Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Kevin O’Sullivan for and on behalf of the Cabra Road Residents Association of 27 Cabra Road, Dublin requested a declaration on this question from Dublin City Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 1st day of May, 2018 stating that the matter is development and is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Kevin O’Sullivan for and on behalf of the Cabra Road Residents Association referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 22nd day of May, 2018:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
a. section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
b. section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
c. section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
d. Article 5 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
e. Article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
f. Class 9 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
g. the planning history of the site,
h. the nature of the uses previously and currently on site, and
i. the pattern of development in the area:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that —
a. the permitted use of the premises is as a nursing home,
b. the proposed use, as a supported homeless accommodation facility, would be a change of use from use as a nursing home, and this change would be material in planning terms because the supported homeless accommodation facility would provide a different service to a different user group, including a population with a broader age profile and is, therefore, a material change of use and is development,
c. nursing home use and homeless accommodation in the manner described by the owner both fall within the scope of the classes of use as described in Class 9 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
d. this material change of use would come within the scope of Article 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, being a change of use within Class 9 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of these Regulations, from Class 9(b) to Class 9(a) and would, therefore, be exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that conversion of the premises to a supported homeless accommodation facility at numbers 57, 59 and 61 Cabra Road (Protected Structures), Dublin is development and is exempted development.
Dated this 18th day of February 2019
APB-302714-18
Dublin City Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of the existing auditorium bar within The Button Factory, under provision of a “Seven-Day Publican’s Licence” instead of the existing “Publican’s Licence (Ordinary) Theatre” type of licence that will continue to apply to the rest of the building at The Button Factory, Curved Street, Temple Bar, Dublin (a Protected Structure) is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS NOTTUB Limited care of Simon Clear and Associates of 3 Terenure Road West, Terenure, Dublin requested a declaration on the question from Dublin City Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 12th day of September, 2018 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS NOTTUB Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 8th day of October, 2018:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
a. Section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
b. Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
c. Section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
d. Articles 5(1), 6(1) and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
e. Parts 1 and 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
f. the planning history of the site,
g. the pattern of development in the area,
h. the submissions on file, and
i. the report of the Inspector.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that —
a. The permitted use of the subject premises is, as set out in the planning permission granted under planning register reference number 1661/92, which consisted of “a four-storey over basement music centre including auditorium, backstage facilities, foyer, offices, music rehearsal/experimental facilities, three shop units and ancillary accommodation with frontage onto new curved street, change of use and conversion of Number 11 Temple Lane South including minor changes to listed Temple Lane South elevation and new roof, and retention of listed façade of Numbers 10/10A, including minor changes to elevation”.
b. The area within the overall premises that is the subject of this referral, that is the auditorium bar, has not been proven by the referrer to be in accordance with the planning permission.
c. An additional use, that being a public house, would be introduced for part of the premises arising from a “Publican’s Seven-Day Licence”, in lieu of a “Publican’s Licence (Ordinary) Theatre”, which is not an incidental use to the main permitted use as a music centre.
d. The public house use would be materially different from the permitted uses by reason of changes to opening hours and trading patterns, likely impacts on neighbouring residential amenity, thus constituting development within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
e. There is no provision for exemption for change of use from music centre to public house under the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Act or the Planning and Development Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of the existing auditorium bar within The Button Factory, under provision of a “Seven-Day Publican’s Licence” instead of the existing “Publican’s Licence (Ordinary) Theatre” type of licence that will continue to apply to the rest of the building at The Button Factory, Curved Street, Temple Bar, Dublin (a Protected Structure) is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 21st day of March 2019
91.RL.3556
Limerick City and County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the partial use of Unit H3 for local retail convenience, ancillary to the primary use of the unit as a wholesale and distribution hub for selected units nationwide along with supporting office and administration at Unit H3 Eastway Business Park, Ballysimon, County Limerick is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Polish Family Foods Limited care of Adam Kearney Associates of 56 Siúl na hAbhann, Mill Road, Corbally, Limerick requested a declaration on the question from Limerick City and County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 23rdday of February, 2017 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Polish Family Foods Limited care of Adam Kearney Associates of 56 Siúl na hAbhann, Mill Road, Corbally, Limerick referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 8th day of March, 2017:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(d) the report of the Planning Inspector:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the current use of the premises as a retail use represents a new and separate use,
(b) such use would constitute a change of use, which would constitute development, being a material change of use, having regard to its character and its material external impacts (such as its possible impact on city centre retailing, traffic and parking) on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and
(c) such material change of use would be inconsistent with the use specified and included in the original grant of permission for the site, that is use for retail warehousing, as per the definition set out in Annex 1 of the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in April, 2012 and would, by reason of Article 10(1)(c) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, not be exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the partial use of Unit H3 for local retail convenience, ancillary to the primary use of the unit as a wholesale and distribution hub for selected units nationwide along with supporting office and administration at Unit H3 Eastway Business Park, Ballysimon, County Limerick is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 23rd day of May 2018
29N.RL.3502
Dublin City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of residential apartments as serviced apartments at Metro Apartments, Santry Cross, Ballymun Road, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Metro Santry Hospitality Limited care of Declan Brassil and Company Limited of Lincoln House, Phoenix Street, Smithfield, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 4thday of August, 2016 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Metro Santry Hospitality Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 30thday of August, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) the submissions on file,
(d) the permitted residential use as apartments,
(e) the proposed use as serviced apartments including use for short-term serviced lettings,
(f) the High Court decision of Barron, J in Thomas McMahon and Others v The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin (High Court 1989 No. 9870P), and
(g) the report of the Planning Inspector:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the use of residential apartments for use as serviced apartments including for short-term lettings constitutes a change of use,
(b) the change of use to serviced apartments, as described above, raises planning considerations that are materially different to the planning considerations relating to permitted use as residential apartments. In particular, (i) the extent and frequency of coming and going to and from the apartments from short-term renters and servicing staff, and (ii) the fully commercial nature of the activity,
(c) the change of use, therefore, constitutes a material change of use and is development as defined in section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, and
(d) neither the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, nor the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, provide any exemption in respect of such a change of use:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of residential apartments as serviced apartments at Metro Apartments, Santry Cross, Ballymun Road, Dublin is development and is not exempted development. Dated this 23rd day of March 2017.
Dated this 28th day of March 2017.
04.RL.3498
Cork County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the provision of catering services by IRD Duhallow at James O’Keeffe Memorial Centre, Newmarket, County Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS IRD Duhallow care of McCutcheon Halley Walsh of 6 Joyce House, Barrack Square, Ballincollig, County Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Cork County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 6th day of July, 2016 stating that:
(a) the provision of catering facilities, which include the preparation of 150 meals daily and a bakery, from a facility permitted under planning register reference number 13/04860 constitutes development which comes within the scope of the governing permission planning register reference number 13/04860, and
(b) the change of use from staff canteen within a single storey ready meal cooking facility to cater for the preparation of 150 meals daily to include a baking area to use as a restaurant within the overall premises is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said IRD Duhallow referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 12th day of July, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral reformulated the question as follows:
“Whether the provision of catering services at James O’Keeffe Memorial Centre, Newmarket, County Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development”:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) section 2 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) the submissions on file,
(c) the planning history of the subject site, including the layout permitted under planning register reference number 13/04860, and
(d) the nature, extent and diversity of uses in the James O’Keeffe Memorial Centre:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the question raised in relation to the permitted use of the premises as a food preparation facility and the current use and scale of operations at the existing ready meals cooking area and bakery and whether it comes within the scope of the permission under planning register reference number 13/04860 it is a question that is not within the remit of the Board to answer as it is a matter solely for the planning authority to determine on the Courts to determine if judicial review is sought on the matter,
(b) the use of the canteen as a restaurant open to persons other than those employed in the catering facilities building which it forms part together with its limited extent in the context of the overall land use in the James O’Keeffe Memorial Centre is a change of use which is considered not to be a material change of use, and
(c) the impact on local amenities from the restaurant is not material:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the provision of catering services at James O’Keeffe Memorial Centre, Newmarket, County Cork is not development. Dated this 23rd day of November 2016.
21.RL.3429
Sligo County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the trading in perishable goods for at least one day per week at Kinard, Enniscrone, County Sligo is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Sligo County Council on the 3rd day of November, 2015:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to–
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) articles 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(c) Class 37 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the use of the car park for the stated purpose of trading in perishable goods is, by reason of the definition in section 3(2)(b)(i) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, a material change of use and is, therefore, development,
(b) the trading of perishable goods, namely the use of an open sided lorry to sell mainly fresh fruit and vegetables on private land, would generally come within the scope of Class 37 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 as a “fair”,
(c) the sale of fresh fruit and vegetables at this location takes place at least once per week and, therefore, this exceeds the Conditions and Limitations of said Class 37, where the placing or maintenance of tents, vans or other temporary or movable structures or objects on the land in connection with such use may only occur for 15 days continuously or in aggregate 30 days in any year, and
(d) there are no bye-laws for casual trading in this area of Enniscrone and, therefore, the exempted development provisions of Section 4(1)(k) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, that is, development consisting of the use of land for the purposes of a casual trading area (within the meaning of the Casual Trading Act, 1995), do not apply in this case:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the trading in perishable goods for at least one day per week at Kinard, Enniscrone, County Sligo is development and is not exempted development. Dated 22 February 2016.
27.RL.3371
Wicklow County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the alteration of the ground surface within an established seating area in front of the Beach House, from brick setts to natural limestone stone and external carpeted eating area and the forming of a boundary to the established external seating area in front of the Beach House of planted natural stone low walls and treated timber posts, in place of the previous planter seat and timber latticed railings at the Beach House, Victoria Road, Greystones, County Wicklow (a protected structure), is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS E. Byrne and Sons Limited care of John Stewart and Associates of Oakdene, Newtown, Waterford requested a declaration of this question from Wicklow County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 2nd day of July, 2015 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS E. Byrne and Sons Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 22nd day of July, 2015:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to–
(a) sections 2, 3, 4 and 57 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Classes 11 and 33 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(d) the planning history of the site, and the documentation submitted with the referral:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the alteration of the ground surface, and the forming of the boundary using stone walls and timber piers, constitute development, being works within the meaning of Section 3 of the Act,
(b) these works are not exempted development, as they do not come within the scope of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and as they materially affect the character and setting of the protected structure, that is Beach House, by reason of their design, scale and extent,
(c) the outdoor seating area enclosed by these works has not been proven to be established or authorised for use as part of the trading area of the public house, and constitutes a change of use, being an extension of the commercial floor area of the public house, and is therefore an intensification of the use of the land, and
(d) the use of the outdoor seating area raises issues of a planning nature including traffic and pedestrian safety and visual amenity, and, therefore, constitutes a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use, which is development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the alteration of the ground surface within an established seating area in front of the Beach House, from brick setts to natural limestone stone and external carpeted eating area and the forming of a boundary to the established external seating area in front of the Beach House of planted natural stone low walls and treated timber posts, in place of the previous planter seat and timber latticed railings at the Beach House, Victoria Road, Greystones, County Wicklow (a protected structure) is development and is not exempted development.
Dated 23 November 2015.
29S.RL.3072
Dublin City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of premises from banking use to coffee shop at Stephen Court, 18/21 Saint Stephen’s Green, Dublin is or is not development and is or is not exempt development:
AND WHEREAS Stephen Court Limited care of Tom Phillips and Associates of 2-3 Roger’s Lane, Lower Baggot Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 17th day of January, 2013 stating that the said matter is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Stephen Court Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 1st day of February, 2013:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in light of the documentation on the file and the content of the request for the declaration, has reformulated the question as follows:
“whether the change of use of premises from banking use to coffee shop and the erection of external signage at Stephen Court, 18/21 Saint Stephen’s Green, Dublin is or is not development and is or is not exempt development”:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 3(1) and 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) articles 5(1), 6(1), 6(2), 9(1)(a)(i), and 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 14 of Part 1, Class 1 of Part 2 and Classes 1, 2 and 3 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) the planning history of the site, in particular planning register reference number 3721/01, and condition number 4 of that permission, and
(e) the information submitted by the referrer regarding the scale, nature and layout of the proposed coffee shop:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that
(a) the change of use of the subject premises, from use for banking to use as a coffee shop is material and is therefore “development” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) the previous use as a bank and the proposed use as a coffee shop do not fall within the same Class of Use under Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and, in particular, the proposed use would not be within the meaning of Class 2 (c) of the said Part 4,
(c) the proposed use as a coffee shop does not constitute use as a “shop” as defined in Article 5 (1), as amended, because the scale, nature and layout of the proposed coffee shop is more akin to a restaurant use which is expressly excluded from the definition of ‘shop’ under Article 5(1) of the said Regulations, as amended,
(d) the erection of external signage on the exterior of these premises, relating to the proposed use as a coffee shop, involves “works” and is therefore “development” within the meaning of Section 3 of the said Act,
(e) the erection of such signage does not come within the meaning of Section 4 (1) (h) of the said Act, not being “development consisting of the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of the structure”, and
(f) the erection of such signage would contravene condition number 4 of planning register reference number 3721/01, in that it would constitute further signage, other than the signage authorised by that permission, and would therefore come within the restrictions on exemption set out in Article 9 (1)(a)(i) of the said Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that
(a) the said change of use of premises from banking use to coffee shop is development and is not exempt development, and
(b) the said erection of external signage is development and is not exempt development.
at Stephen Court, 18/21 Saint Stephen’s Green, Dublin.
Dated July 4, 2013.
09.RL.3029
KILDARE COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether:
(a) importing, storing, processing, composting and spreading and/or disposal of organic fines (EWC code 19 12 12), and
(b) infrastructure development including the provision of underground storage tanks for the collection of surface water run-off and the construction of a reinforced concrete retaining wall in support of the use on a farm at Larch Hill, Monasterevin, County Kildare is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Mel Doyle of Forest View, Stramillion, Monasterevin, County Kildare requested a declaration on the question from Kildare County Council and no declaration issued from the planning authority:
AND WHEREAS the said Mel Doyle referred the question for decision to An Bord Pleanála on the 23rd day of July, 2012:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2(1), 3(1) 4(1) and 4(4) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 6(3) and 9(3) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Part 1 of Schedule 2 and Part 3 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(d) the nature of the material which is classified as EWC code 19 12 12, the source of the material which is a waste transfer station, and the final destinations of the processed material,
(e) significant increase in traffic generation and activity levels on site, and
(f) the proximity to the River Barrow and to designated European Site Special Area of Conservation (reference number 002162) and the contaminated nature of surface water generated by the activities on site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the said importing, storing, processing, composting and spreading and/or disposal of organic fines (EWC code 19 12 12) and related Research and Development is a waste processing activity in an existing farmyard and constitutes a material change of use, and is therefore development,
(b) the use of the agricultural sheds for the storage and processing of waste imported constitutes a material change of use, and is therefore development,
(c) the said development does not come within the scope of section 4(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and Regulations made thereunder, and
(d) infrastructural development, including the provision of underground storage tanks for the collection of surface water run-off and the construction of a reinforced concrete retaining wall in support of the use cannot avail of any exemptions for the purposes of agriculture under the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, or the Regulations made thereunder:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (b) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that:
(a) the said importing, storing, processing, composting and spreading and/or disposal of organic fines (EWC code 19 12 12) is development and is not exempted development, and
(b) infrastructure development including the provision of underground storage tanks for the collection of surface water run-off and the construction of a reinforced concrete retaining wall in support of the use on a farm is development and is not exempted development,
all at Larch Hill, Monasterevin, County Kildare.
Dated September 5, 2013.
63.RL.2978
KILLARNEY TOWN
WHEREAS questions have arisen as to whether the use of the public lane –
(a) as a bin store and barrel store,
(b) as a smoking area,
(c) for hanging flower baskets and half barrel features along the external wall, and
(d) as a beer garden and advertising area, at The Speakeasy Bar (a Protected Structure), Duckett’s Lane, High Street, Killarney, County Kerry are or are not development or are or are not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Killarney Town Council on the 14th day of February, 2012: AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2(1), 3(1), 4(1) and 57(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and
(b) article 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended;
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the use of the public lane as a bin or barrel store is not a material change of use and accordingly, is not development,
(b) the use of the Duckett’s Lane as a smoking area associated with the bar use does not constitute a material change of use having regard to the nature and frequency of the use as a smoking area and accordingly, is not development,
(c) the erection of the half barrel features along the external wall of the protected structure, together with the erection of fixed hanging baskets come within the scope of section 57(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as these features do not materially affect the external appearance of the protected structure or any element of the structure which contributes to its special architectural, historical, archaeological, artistic, cultural, scientific, social or technical interest;
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that –
(a) the use of Duckett’s Lane as a bin store and barrel store does not constitute a material change of use and accordingly, is not development,
(b) the use of the Duckett’s Lane as a smoking area associated with the bar use does not constitute a material change of use having regard to the nature and frequency of the use as a smoking area and accordingly, is not development, and
(c) the hanging flower baskets and half barrel features along the external wall of the protected structure, being the Speakeasy Bar, is development and is exempted development.
Dated February 22, 2013
26.RL.2882
WEXFORD COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of agricultural land at Duncormick, County Wexford for use as a clay pigeon shoot for limited periods in any year is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Wexford County Council on the 27th day of May, 2011:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a)Sections 2, 3, 4 and 177U of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b)Articles 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c)Classes 33 and 37 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d)the County Wexford Development Plan, 2007-2013, and
(e)the submissions on the file:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a)the use of the lands is for agricultural purposes,
(b)the use of the land for clay pigeon shooting is a sporting/recreational use, which is undertaken by visitors to the farmer’s land,
(c)a change of use of the land occurs when clay pigeon shooting takes place,
(d)this change of use is material and gives rise to impacts in relation to noise, traffic and environmental impacts,
(e)the change of use occurs on a regular basis, and
(f)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 and Development Regulations, 2001-2012.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides 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.
Dated August 16, 2012
53.RL.2868
COBH TOWN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of part of the Cork Dockyard for the reception, temporary storage and resizing of metals, pending loading onto ships for export for recycling abroad at Cork Dockyard, Cobh, County Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Doyle Shipping Group care of Manahan Planners of 38 Dawson Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Cobh Town Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 7th day of April, 2011 stating that the said matter is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Doyle Shipping Group referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 4th day of May, 2011:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended and the classes of use specified in Part 4 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations, and
(c) the established use on the site:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the land has an established use for industrial purposes,
(b) current end-of-life vehicles and old metal waste would be deposited on the land, awaiting shipment abroad,
(c) the use of the land has therefore materially changed,
(d) there is no exemption for this material change of use in the provisions of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, or in the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of part of the Cork Dockyard for the reception, temporary storage and resizing of metals, pending loading onto ships for export for recycling abroad at Cork Dockyard, Cobh, County Cork is development and is not exempted development. Dated September 7, 2011
06F.RL.2762
FINGAL COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether change of use from community services to use for dispensing of treatments for addictions, offices and consulting rooms at Unit 37A Coolmine Industrial Estate, Porter’s Avenue, Blanchardstown, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS John Prunty care of Gráinne Mallon of 6 Merrion Square, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Fingal County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 21st day of June, 2010 stating that the said matter is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said John Prunty referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 16th day of July, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000;
(b) section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 as amended;
(c) article 5 (1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001;
(d) articles 6 (1) and 10 (1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001;
(e) Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and in particular, Class 8 thereof;
(f) the planning history of the site;
(g) the nature of the proposed use, which includes dispensing of treatment for addictions, and
(h) the submissions made in connection with the referral.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the permitted use on this site is considered to be a “day centre” as defined by article 5 (1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and therefore a class of use coming within the scope of class 8(d) of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001;
(b) the proposed use, for dispensing of treatments for addictions, offices and consulting rooms, has particular material implications in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, including in respect of the potential impact on the amenities of the area and of property in the vicinity and in respect of public health, security, noise and general disturbance, such that it is considered to be ‘sui generis’ and not to constitute a type of use coming within the scope of class 8 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001;
(c) the proposed change of use from community services to use for dispensing of treatments for addictions, office and consulting rooms, constitutes a material change of use and, therefore, is development and
(d) the said change of use does not come within the exempted development provisions of section 4(1) of the Planning and Development Acts, 2000-2010 or of article 6 or article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use from community services to use for dispensing of treatments for addictions, offices and consulting rooms at Unit 37A Coolmine Industrial Estate, Porter’s Avenue, Blanchardstown, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated December 14, 2010
23.RL.2655
SOUTH TIPPERARY COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the operation of a non-commercial helicopter pad on part of a hard surface area on land zoned for industry at Kilcommon More (North), Cahir, Co. Tipperary, is or is not development and is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS AIBP care of Stephen Ward, Town Planning Consultants Limited of Distillery House, Distillery Lane, Dundalk, County Louth requested a declaration on the said question from South Tipperary County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 5th day of August, 2009 stating that the said development is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said AIBP referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 31st day of August, 2009:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act,2000,
(b) Class 21 (b) of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) the established use of the land.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(i) the use of part of a hard surface area as a noncommercial helicopter pad is not a normal use of the land at this location, notwithstanding that the established use of the land is for industry,
(ii) a change in the use of the subject land occurs for the time that a helicopter approaches, lands, discharges or picks up passengers and then takes off,
(iii) the character of the use of the land is altered in planning terms by the said use,
(iv) the activities associated with the said use and the effects of the activities introduce material planning considerations,
(v) the said operation of a non-commercial helicopter pad on part of a hard surface area on land zoned for industry constitutes a material change of use of the land and is, therefore, development,
(vi) the said use of the land is not for the purposes of or in connection with the industrial process carried out in the existing industrial building on the land,
(vii) the said use, therefore, does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions of Class 21 (b) of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(viii) further, the said use of the land, not being works, does not come within the scope of the other exempted development provisions of section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, and
(ix) the said use of the land does not come within the scope of any other exempted development provision of section 4 of the Act.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the operation of a noncommercial helicopter pad on part of a hard surface area on land zoned for industry at Kilcommon More (North), Cahir, County Tipperary, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated March 31, 2010
28.RL.2641
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a change of use from a pub to an offlicence and whether a change of use from one commercial unit (a public house) to two commercial units, namely, a public house and an off-licence at 48 Barrack Street, Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Cork City Council on the 1st day of July, 2009:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) Part 1 and Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) Article 3 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2005,
(e) the submissions made during the course of the referral, and
(f) the physical layout of the premises:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the off-licence is operated as a separate entity from the public house, with its own door, business identity, hours of operation and customer base, and consequently, the off licence cannot be considered an ancillary use to the public house,
(b) the off-licence use is materially different from the public house use by reason of trading patterns, consumption on the premises versus consumption off the premises, car parking and traffic, likely impacts on neighbouring residential amenity and social behaviour,
(c) therefore, a material change of use has occurred in part of the premises, which constitutes development within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and
(d) there is no provision for exemption for change of use from public house to offlicence under the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said separation of the off-licence from the public house constitutes a material change of use and is, therefore, development and is not exempted development.
Dated December 15, 2009.
03.RL.2573
CLARE COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of the ground floor of the premises formerly known as Kearneys public house from use as a public house with ancillary off-licence element to use as a convenience store with ancillary offlicence element at Lissycasey, Ennis, County Clare is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Tom Connellan, Connellan Development Limited of Hilltop, Lissycasey, Ennis, County Clare requested a declaration on the said question from Clare County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 12th day of August, 2008 stating that the said development was development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Tom Connellan, Connellan Development Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 4th day of September, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) articles 5(1), 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) class 14(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations, and
(d) the submissions made in connection with the referral, including in respect of the nature of the previous use of the premises:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the change of use of the public house to a shop is a material change of use and is, therefore, development,
(b) the said change of use from a public house to a shop would come generally within the scope of the exempted development provisions of class 14(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(c) but the change of use in the instant case includes use as an off-licence,
(d) the definition of “shop” as set out in article 5(1) of the Regulations (as amended) does not include off-licence use, as the said article 5(1) defines a “shop” as including the sale of alcohol only as limited by the provisions of paragraph (d) to the said article 5(1), and
(e) therefore, the said change of use, which includes use of the premises as a shop with ancillary off-licence use, cannot avail of the exempted development provisions of the said class 14(b) and is not exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of the ground floor of the premises formerly known as Kearneys public house from use as a public house with ancillary off-licence element to use as a convenience store with ancillary off-licence element at Lissycasey, Ennis, County Clare is development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated December 9, 2009.
24.RL.2562
WATERFORD COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of Units numbers 1, 10 and 11, Butlerstown Retail Park, Waterford by TK Maxx is a change of use from that permitted under planning register reference numbers 06/522 and 06/2026 and is or is not development and is or is not exempted development, and whether the amalgamation of units numbers 1, 10 and 11 into one single unit is or is not development and is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Noel Frisby Construction Limited of 1-2 Canada Street, Waterford requested a declaration on the said question from Waterford County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 29th day of July, 2008 stating that the said use was exempted development and that no declaration could issue in relation to the amalgamation of the units:
AND WHEREAS the said Noel Frisby Construction Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 15th day of August, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 3 (1) and 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) Articles 5(1), 6(1), 9(1), 10(1) and 10(2) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) Class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) Class 1 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(e) the planning history of the site, and
(f) the definition of retail warehouse as set out in Annex 1 of the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in January 2005, namely: “A large single-level store specialising in the sale of bulky household goods such as carpets, furniture and electrical goods, and bulky DIY items, catering mainly for car-borne customers and often in out-of-centre locations”:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the buildings on site have a permitted use (under planning register reference numbers 06/522 and 06/2026) as retail warehouses,
(b) the proposed use of the units by TK Maxx therefore constitutes a change of use. In coming to that conclusion, the Board noted that the retailing activity carried out by TK Maxx (which includes the sale of fashion clothing, footwear, sportswear, toys, jewellery, non-bulky household goods and goods for personal care or other goods which are included in the definition of “comparison” goods in Annex 1 of the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government in January 2005) does not come within the scope of the definition of activities of a retail warehouse as set out in the said Retail Planning Guidelines,
(c) the said change of use constitutes development, being a material change of use, having regard to its character and its material external impacts (such as its possible impacts on city centre retailing, traffic or parking) on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and
(d) the internal alterations to the units to amalgamate same are directly related to the change of use in question and are, therefore, not exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of Units numbers 1, 10 and 11, Butlerstown Retail Park, Waterford by TK Maxx and the amalgamation of units numbers 1, 10 and 11 into one single unit is development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated February 23, 2009.
62.RL.2498
KILKENNY BOROUGH
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of an existing public house as a lap dancing club at “Widow McGraths”, 29 Parliament Street, Kilkenny is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Kilkenny Borough Council on the 7th day of January, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 127 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) article 5 (1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) part 4 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations,
(d) the planning history of the site, including the authorised use of the first floor of the premises as a public house (planning register reference number P.52/97), and
(e) the observations of the Board’s Inspector on site inspection:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the use of the building or any part thereof as a lap-dancing club is materially different from and outside the range of activities generally associated with a public house, involving the provision of private space within the public house to facilitate certain activities, such as to constitute a change of use from a public house. Having regard to the nature of the change of use, material consequences would be likely to arise in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area as a result of impacts on the residential and other amenities of the area and the potential depreciation of the value of property in the vicinity. The use in question, therefore, constitutes a material change of use which is development for the purposes of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2007. As there is no provision for exemption of such development under the said Acts or Regulations made thereunder, the development is not exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5(4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of an existing public house as a lap dancing club at “Widow McGraths”, 29 Parliament Street, Kilkenny is development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated January 12, 2009
29N.RL.2359
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from a Bed and Breakfast (B & B) to a residential care home for children at 190 and 192 Upper Drumcondra Road, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Maurice O’Connor care of Keith Simpson and Associates of 145 Lakeview Drive, Airside Business Park, Swords, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 14th day of June, 2006 stating that the said development was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Maurice O’Connor referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 3rd day of July, 2006:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) articles 6, 9 and 10 and Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) the nature and scale of the previous use of the premises, as a Bed and Breakfast and
(d) the nature and scale of the current use as a residential care home for children, which constitute a target group with particular needs for comprehensive care, staffing, guidance and accommodation facilities:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) having regard to the difference in the nature and scale of the change of use of the premises, the said use of numbers 190 and 192 Upper Drumcondra Road (a former Bed and Breakfast) to provide a residential care home for children would constitute a material change of use and would, therefore, constitute development within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) the said use of numbers 190 and 192 Upper Drumcondra Road (a former Bed and Breakfast) to provide a residential care home for children is not exempted development as it does not come within the scope of section 4 of the said Act or articles 6 and 10 and Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and
(c) the use of numbers 190 and 192 Upper Drumcondra Road (a former Bed and Breakfast), to provide a residential care home for children has material consequences in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use from a Bed and Breakfast (B & B) to a residential care home for children at 190 and 192 Upper Drumcondra Road, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated December 14, 2007
08.RL.2346
KERRY COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether a block making operation at a quarry at Coolcaslagh, Killarney, County Kerry is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Kerry County Council on May 8, 2006:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and
(b) articles 5, 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, with reference to class 21(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) quarrying and concrete block-making activity took place at the site prior October 1, 1964,
(b) the information before the Board is not sufficient to enable a determination to be made in relation to any intensification of use of the lands for quarrying by reason of increased extraction rates since October 1, 1964 which would have given rise to a requirement for planning permission,
(c) the information before the Board in relation to the date of installation of concrete batching plants and the history of the rate of production is not sufficient to enable a determination to be made in relation to whether the production of concrete at a rate of 400 cubic metres per day is authorised,
(d) the laying out of a hard surfaced area of two acres in extent is development,
(e) the laying out of a hard surfaced area of two acres in extent does not fall within the scope of section 4(1)(h) of the 2000 Act, not being works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration to a structure,
(f) the yard has not been constructed within the curtilage of an industrial building and is not, therefore, exempted under class 21(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(g) the construction of the yard is development which is not exempted development,
(h) the manufacture of blocks is dependent on the use of a large area of land for drying and storage which gives rise to material planning effects, and
(i) the production of concrete blocks is an intensification of use that consists of a material change of use of the land:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said block making operation at a quarry at Coolcaslagh, Killarney, County Kerry is development and is not exempted development.
Dated December 13, 2006.
28.RL.2260
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the provision of a car valeting and car wash enterprise at Grand Parade Multi-Storey Carpark, Grand Parade, Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Cork City Council on June 28, 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) part 4 of Schedule 2 of the said Regulations, and
(d) the planning history of the site, in particular planning register reference number T.P. 20666/96:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the car valeting and car wash enterprise on part of the third floor of Grand Parade Multi-Storey Carpark constitutes a material change of use of that part of the car park:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said provision of a car valeting and car wash enterprise at Grand Parade Multi-Storey Carpark, Grand Parade, Cork is development and is not exempted development.
Dated November 1, 2005
28.RL.2261
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the provision of a car valeting and carwash enterprise on part of the ground floor of the multi-storey carpark at Carroll’s Quay, Cork is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Cork City Council on June 28, 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(e) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(f) article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(g) part 4 of Schedule 2 of the said Regulations, and
(h) the planning history for the site, in particular planning register reference number T.P. 98/ 22168:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the car valeting and car wash enterprise on part of the ground floor of Carroll’s Quay multi-storey carpark constitutes a material change of use of that part of the car park:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the provision of a car valeting and carwash enterprise on part of the ground floor of the multi-storey carpark at Carroll’s Quay, Cork is development and is not exempted development.
Dated November 1, 2005
23.RL.2174
SOUTH TIPPERARY COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the erection of a concrete batching plant and pre-cast manufacturing plant on the site of an industrial undertaking comprising a rock quarry, sand and gravel pit at Cloughleigh, Golden, County Tipperary is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Gleeson Concrete care of Keane Solicitors of Hardiman House, Eyre Square, Galway on June 25, 2004.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) ss.2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) arts 6 and 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, with particular reference to Class 21 of Pt 1 of Sch.2 to the said Regulations; and
(c) the planning history of the site.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the works do not come within the scope of Class 21 of Pt 1 of Sch.2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, not being works comprising the addition or replacement of plant and, in any event, not falling within limitation number 1 specified in Column 2 of this class, and
(b) the works constitute an intensification and change in nature of the operations on the site and so represent a material change of use.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5 of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said erection of a concrete batching plant and pre-cast manufacturing plant at Cloughleigh, Golden, County Tipperary is not exempted development
Dated December 22, 2004
29S.RL.2172
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use of the existing building from a restaurant to a music/café bar at Pal Joey Music and Café Bar, 15/16 Crown Alley, Temple Bar, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS Krish Naidoo care of Kiaran O’Malley and Company Limited of Saint Heliers, Saint Heliers Copse, Stillorgan Park, Blackrock, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on June 2, 2004 stating that the said change of use was development and was not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said Krish Naidoo referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on June 29, 2004.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000;
(b) article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001;
(c) the planning history on the site.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) the introduction of entertainment and dancing with accompanying music, by reason of its scale and frequency, has resulted in an intensification of the use of the premises; and
(b) the said intensification of use and the resultant noise and general disturbance are of such a nature and scale that they involve a material change of use of the premises, which comes within the meaning of “development” in s.3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5.(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of the existing building from a restaurant to a music/ café bar at Pal Joey Music and Café Bar, 15/16 Crown Alley, Temple Bar, Dublin is development and is not exempted development.
Dated November 24, 2004
27.RL.2036
WICKLOWCOUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether intensification of use of quarry at Tomriland, Annamoe, County Wicklow has occurred and whether such intensification is or is not development or exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Wicklow County Council under section 5(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 on November 14, 2002.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963,
(b) sections 2, 3 and 4 and sections 127 to 132 (inclusive) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the use of part of the land for quarrying of sand and gravel commenced prior to the appointed day (namely October 1, 1964),
(b) the use of the land during the period from the appointed day to early 2000 was on a limited scale and was intermittent in nature,
(c) the use of the land since 2001 for the quarrying of sand and gravel involved intensification of use to a degree which resulted in the making of a material change in the use of the land relative to the use on or before the appointed day, having regard to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and
(d) the change in the use of the land since 2001 comes within the meaning of ‘development’ as defined in section 3(1) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 and as defined in section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, being a material change of use.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 hereby decides that the said intensification of use of quarry is development and is not exempted development.
Dated July 11, 2003.
55.RF.1068
DUNDALK TOWN COUNCIL
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from estate agents to mortgage shop at 59 Park Street, Dundalk, County Louth is or is not development or exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Stephen Ward of Jocelyn House, Jocelyn Street, Dundalk, County Louth on behalf of Jim Holmes on January 18, 2002.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 3 and 4of the sections 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963,
(b) articles 8 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994 with particular reference to Part IV of the Second Schedule to these Regulations, and
(c) to the planning history of the site.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the said change of use of 59 Park Street constitutes a material change of use,
(b) the said use of 59 Park Street as an estate agents office and the proposed use to mortgage shop are both classes of use that come within the description of Class 2 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the 1994 Regulations, and
(c) the existing use of 59 Park Street as an estate agents office constitutes an unauthorised use by reference to the decision made under appeal reference number PL 55.111224.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that –
(a) the said change of use of 59 Park Street is development, and
(b) notwithstanding such change of use coming within the scope of the provisions set out in article 11 of the said Regulations is not exempted development by reason of the unauthorised status of the existing use.
06S.RF.1021 COUNTY SOUTH DUBLIN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether change of use by converting a small area of first floor room for use as a service bar at The Kilnamanagh Family Recreation Centre, Freepark Road, Dublin is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Harry Lawlor of 10 Beech Walk, Brookwood, Dublin on behalf of The Kilnamanagh Family Recreation Centre Limited on June 15, 2001.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the proposed use of the first floor area, as indicated in the submissions, is an intensification of use of the community centre and thus a material change in use constituting development which is not exempted development by reference to section 4 of the said Act.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use by converting a small area of first floor for use as a service bar is development and is not exempted development.
Dated February 22, 2002.
06S.RF.1022
COUNTY SOUTH DUBLIN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the replacement of roof tiles on rear slope of building with Nordman sheeting at 5 Castle Crescent, Clondalkin, Dublin is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by P. M. Ging Architect of Laureston, Monastery Road, Clondalkin, Dublin on behalf of Sean Reilly on May 23, 2001.
AND WHEREAS An Bord pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the replacement of the said roof tiles with “Nordman” sheeting is not exempted development by reference to section 4(1)(g) of the said Act as it would materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render such appearance inconsistent with the character of neighbouring structures.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the replacement of the said roof with “Nordman” sheeting is not exempted development.
Dated March 8, 2002.
RF.17.0848
COUNTY MEATH
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether restoration of a structure to be used for residential purposes at Adamstown, Trim, County Meath is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Reid Associates of 2 Arran Square, off Lincoln Lane, Dublin on behalf of John and Marie Matthews on the 10th day of February, 1998:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to —
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the 1963 Act,
(b) article 8 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994,
(c) the submissions made by the parties to the reference in relation to the condition and use of the structure, and
(d) the nature and extent of the works proposed to be carried out to the structure:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) the structure has not been occupied for residential purposes for at least 40 years and it has not been established that there was not an intention in the intervening period of abandoning the use of the structure for residential purposes,
(b) the resumption of the use of the structure for residential purposes would involve a material change of use which would constitute development within the meaning of section 3(1) of the 1963 Act,
(c) the works involved in the restoration of the structure for residential purposes also come within the scope of section 3(1) of the 1963 Act, and
(d) neither the said change of use nor the said works comes within the scope of section 4 of the 1963 Act:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, hereby decides that the said restoration of the structure to be used for residential purposes is not exempted development.
Dated this 9th day of June 1998.
ABP-307857-20
Sligo County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether use for occasional events at Newpark House, Newpark Demesne, Newpark, Ballymote, County Sligo, is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Christopher and Dorothy-Ellen Kitchin care of Kiaran O’Malley and Company Limited, Town Planning Consultants of Saint Heliers, Saint Heliers Copse, Stillorgan Park, Blackrock, County Dublin requested a declaration on this question from Sligo County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 9th day of July, 2020 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Christopher and Dorothy-Ellen Kitchin care of Kiaran O’Malley and Company Limited, Town Planning Consultants referred this declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 5th day of August, 2020:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 2, 3, 4, 57 and 229 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5, 6, 9 and 183 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2020,
(c) Class 37 to Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2020, and
(d) the submissions on file from the referrer:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the holding of the stated events would constitute an actual change of use,
(b) the actual change of use is considered to be a material change of use based on the type and number of proposed events and is therefore development within the meaning of Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and
(c) the Board is not satisfied that the development comes within the scope of class 37 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001-2020, as amended, which is limited to local events.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5 (3)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, hereby decides that the use for occasional events at Newpark House, Newpark Demesne, Newpark, Ballymote, County Sligo, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 25thday of January 2021
ABP-306083-19
Louth County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether an extension to the existing vernacular stone cottage at Townleyhall, Drogheda, County Louth is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Sheila Finnamore care of Robert Kenny Architectural and Engineering Services, Townleyhall, Drogheda, County Louth requested a declaration on this question from Louth County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 8th day of November, 2019 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Sheila Finnamore care of Robert Kenny Architectural and Engineering Services referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 5th day of December, 2019:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
(a) sections 2(1), 3(1) and 4(1)(h) of the 123123Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) article 6(1) and article 9(1)(a)(viiB) and (xii) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 1 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(d) the provisions of the Louth County Development Plan 2015—2021,
(e) the planning history of the site, and
(f) the documentation on file, including photographs submitted by the referrer and the planning authority and the details regarding the proposed works:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that —
(a) the construction of an extension to the rear of the cottage at Townleyhall, Drogheda, County Louth, as set out in the drawings and associated documentation submitted with the referral, would constitute development,
(b) the existing cottage structure on the site, in respect of which the works are proposed, is not in residential use and, on the basis of the documentation submitted, there is no evidence on file of any residential use of this cottage in recent times, or for a significant period of time, and the resumption of such residential use of the subject building would now constitute a change of use that is material, having regard to the potential for consequences in planning terms, including the potential for implications in terms of wastewater, the provision of services in an unzoned, unserviced rural area, proximate to European sites, and the potential for the intensification of use of the access and local road network in the vicinity and would, therefore, constitute development, which development does not come within the scope of any of the provisions for exempted development, as set out in the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 (as amended), and
(c) in view of its location within Townley Hall Demesne Architectural Conservation Area, and proximate to European sites, the development would fall within the Restrictions on Exemption as set out in article 9(1)(a)(xii) and (viiB) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that an extension to the existing vernacular stone cottage at Townleyhall, Drogheda, County Louth is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 18th day of June 2020
ABP-301092-18
Limerick City and County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the development of a premises as a retail pharmacy and the subsequent fitting out of the premises consisting of the following:
a. the change of use from a hairdressing salon to a chemist shop,
b. the works of refurbishment and alteration to the building which were carried out circa 2001.
c. the works of conversion from a hairdressing salon to a chemist shop, and
d. the erection of an advertisement sign on the front of the premises, at Newtown, Bruff, County Limerick are or are not development or are or are not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Paul Mullins care of Brendan McGrath and Associates of Riverstown Cottage, Corrofin, County Clare requested a declaration on the said question from Limerick City and County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 7th day of February, 2018 stating that the said development of premises as a retail pharmacy is not development and the subsequent fitting out of premises is development and is exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Paul Mullins referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 6th day of March, 2018:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to —
a. sections 2 and 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
b. section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
c. article 5, article 6(1), article 9(1) and article 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
d. Class 1 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
e. Class 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
f. the planning history of the site, and
g. the pattern of development in the area:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that —
a. the change of use from a hairdressing salon to a chemist shop constitutes development as set out in Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
b. the works of alteration and refurbishment of the building carried out circa 2011 constitute development as set out in Section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
c. the change of use from a hairdressing salon to a chemist shop comes within the scope of the exemption provided under article 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, as each of the uses fall within Class 1 of Part 4 Schedule 2 of the said Regulations,
d. the works of refurbishment and alteration to the building which were carried out circa 2001 come within the scope of the exemption provided under Section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
e. the works of conversion from a hairdressing salon to a chemist shop come within the scope of the exemption provided under Section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and
f. the erection of an advertisement sign on the front of the premises comes within the scope of the exemption provided under Class 1 of Part 2 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the development of a premises as a retail pharmacy and the subsequent fitting out of the premises consisting of the following:
a. the change of use from a hairdressing salon to a chemist shop,
b. the works of refurbishment and alteration to the building which were carried out circa 2001.
c. the works of conversion from a hairdressing salon to a chemist shop, and
d. the erection of an advertisement sign on the front of the premises, at Newtown, Bruff, County Limerick are development and are exempted development.
Dated this 1st day of February 2019
17.RL.3466
Meath County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether
(1) the erection of a steel fence line and two double gates onto the Avenue of Headfort Demesne is or is not development or is or is not exempted development,
(2) the removal, clearance and mulching of woodland and undergrowth within Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area and within The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 002299) (and affecting The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Protection Area, (Site Code: 004232)) is or is not development or is or is not exempted development, and
(3) change of use of open nature reserve area to enclosed grassed area at Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area is or is not development or is or is not exempted development, all at Headfort Demesne, Kells, County Meath:
AND WHEREAS J. McCaldin of 12 The Main Courtyard, Headfort Demesne, Kells, County Meath requested a declaration on this question from Meath County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 15th day of February, 2016 stating that –
(1) the erection of a steel fence line and two double gates onto the Avenue of Headfort Demesne is development and is exempted development,
(2) the removal, clearance and mulching of woodland and undergrowth within Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area and within The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 002299) (and affecting The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Protection Area, (Site Code: 004232)) is development and is not exempted development, and
(3) the change of use of the open nature reserve area to enclosed grassed area at Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area is not applicable to the site as it is not a nature reserve:
AND WHEREAS J. McCaldin of 12 The Main Courtyard, Headfort Demesne, Kells, County Meath referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 8th day of March, 2016:
AND WHEREAS the declaration in relation to the question referred to in (2) above was also referred for review to An Bord Pleanála by Peter and Rosaleen Gallagher of Oakley Park, Kells, County Meath on the 14th day of March, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Article 6 and Article 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 9 and Class 11(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(d) the applicable Development Plan policies, including policy statement CH POL 18 of the current Meath County Development Plan, and the Statement of Character for the Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area (2009):
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the erection of the steel fence and two double gates constitutes works as defined in Section 2 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and is, therefore, development under Section 3 of that Act,
(b) the erection of the steel fence and two double gates comes within Classes 9 and 11 (a) of Part 1 of the Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and none of the restrictions on development set out in Article 9 (1) (a) of these Regulations apply in this instance, and the development in question is, therefore, exempted development,
(c) the removal, clearance and mulching of woodland involves works as defined in Section 2 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and is, therefore, development under Section 3 of that Act,
(d) this development would generally come within the scope of Section 4 (1) (i) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, being development consisting of the thinning or felling of trees or works ancillary to that development,
(e) however, having regard to the close proximity of the subject site to the River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 002299) and to The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Protection Area (Site Code: 004232), and the potential for effects on these European Sites as a result of this development, including indirect effects resulting from potential run-off from the works into the European Sites, it is considered that it cannot be established, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the development in question would not have significant effects on the European Sites in question, in the light of the conservation objectives for those sites, and that therefore, an Appropriate Assessment is required. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4 (4) of the Act, the development is not exempted development, and
(f) the site in question is not a nature reserve and accordingly the issue raised in relation to the question in (3) above is not a valid question and, therefore, is outside the parameters of a Section 5 Declaration:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that –
(1) the erection of a steel fence line and two double gates onto the Avenue of Headfort Demesne is development and is exempted development,
(2) the removal, clearance and mulching of woodland and undergrowth within Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area and within The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 002299) (and affecting The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Protection Area, Site Code: 004232)) is development and is not exempted development, and
(3) the change of use of open nature reserve area to enclosed grassed area at Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area is outside the parameters of a Section 5 Declaration as the site is not a nature reserve, all at Headfort Demesne, Kells, County Meath.
Dated this 7th day of June 2018
17.RL.3466
Meath County Council
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether
(1) the erection of a steel fence line and two double gates onto the Avenue of Headfort Demesne is or is not development or is or is not exempted development,
(2) the removal, clearance and mulching of woodland and undergrowth within Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area and within The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 002299) (and affecting The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Protection Area, (Site Code: 004232)) is or is not development or is or is not exempted development, and
(3) change of use of open nature reserve area to enclosed grassed area at Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area is or is not development or is or is not exempted development, all at Headfort Demesne, Kells, County Meath:
AND WHEREAS J. McCaldin of 12 The Main Courtyard, Headfort Demesne, Kells, County Meath requested a declaration on this question from Meath County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 15th day of February, 2016 stating that –
(1) the erection of a steel fence line and two double gates onto the Avenue of Headfort Demesne is development and is exempted development,
(2) the removal, clearance and mulching of woodland and undergrowth within Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area and within The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 002299) (and affecting The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Protection Area, (Site Code: 004232)) is development and is not exempted development, and
(3) the change of use of the open nature reserve area to enclosed grassed area at Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area is not applicable to the site as it is not a nature reserve:
AND WHEREAS J. McCaldin of 12 The Main Courtyard, Headfort Demesne, Kells, County Meath referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 8th day of March, 2016:
AND WHEREAS the declaration in relation to the question referred to in (2) above was also referred for review to An Bord Pleanála by Peter and Rosaleen Gallagher of Oakley Park, Kells, County Meath on the 14th day of March, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Article 6 and Article 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 9 and Class 11(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and
(d) the applicable Development Plan policies, including policy statement CH POL 18 of the current Meath County Development Plan, and the Statement of Character for the Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area (2009):
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the erection of the steel fence and two double gates constitutes works as defined in Section 2 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and is, therefore, development under Section 3 of that Act,
(b) the erection of the steel fence and two double gates comes within Classes 9 and 11 (a) of Part 1 of the Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended, and none of the restrictions on development set out in Article 9 (1) (a) of these Regulations apply in this instance, and the development in question is, therefore, exempted development,
(c) the removal, clearance and mulching of woodland involves works as defined in Section 2 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and is, therefore, development under Section 3 of that Act,
(d) this development would generally come within the scope of Section 4 (1) (i) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, being development consisting of the thinning or felling of trees or works ancillary to that development,
(e) however, having regard to the close proximity of the subject site to the River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 002299) and to The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Protection Area (Site Code: 004232), and the potential for effects on these European Sites as a result of this development, including indirect effects resulting from potential run-off from the works into the European Sites, it is considered that it cannot be established, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that the development in question would not have significant effects on the European Sites in question, in the light of the conservation objectives for those sites, and that therefore, an Appropriate Assessment is required. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 4 (4) of the Act, the development is not exempted development, and
(f) the site in question is not a nature reserve and accordingly the issue raised in relation to the question in (3) above is not a valid question and, therefore, is outside the parameters of a Section 5 Declaration:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that –
(1) the erection of a steel fence line and two double gates onto the Avenue of Headfort Demesne is development and is exempted development,
(2) the removal, clearance and mulching of woodland and undergrowth within Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area and within The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Area of Conservation (Site Code: 002299) (and affecting The River Boyne and River Blackwater Special Protection Area, Site Code: 004232)) is development and is not exempted development, and
(3) the change of use of open nature reserve area to enclosed grassed area at Headfort Demesne Architectural Conservation Area is outside the parameters of a Section 5 Declaration as the site is not a nature reserve, all at Headfort Demesne, Kells, County Meath.
Dated this 7th day of June 2018
03.RL.3592
Clare County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of unit number 4 Woodquay as a restaurant for the consumption of food on the premises is consistent with the conditions of Ennis Urban District Council permission 27/1416 at unit number 4 Woodquay, Ennis, County Clare is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Michal Szymacha care of Michael J. Duffy care of 1 Clós Na hEaglaise, Kilfenora, County Clare requested a declaration on this question from Clare County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 22nd day of May 2017, stating that the matter was not development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Michal Szymacha care of Michael J. Duffy care of 1 Clós Na hEaglaise, Kilfenora, County Clare referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 2nd day of June 2017:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, having regard to the documentation submitted as part of the declaration and referral, has decided to reformulate the question as follows:
“Whether the change of use of unit number 4 Woodquay from shop to use as a restaurant for the consumption of food on the premises at number 4 Woodquay, Ennis, County Clare is or is not development or is or is not exempted development”.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,
(b) the definition of ‘shop’ under article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(c) Articles 6(1), 9(1) and 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 as amended, and Class 1 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations, and
(d) the planning history of the site, including planning permission register reference number 27/1416, whereby planning permission was granted for five number shop units, which included the unit the subject of this referral:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the permitted use of the subject unit, as granted under planning permission register reference number 27/1416 is as a shop,
(b) the proposed change of use of the unit from shop to use as a restaurant for the consumption of food on the premises would be a factual change of use and such change of use would raise material planning considerations, and accordingly would constitute a material change of use, and is, therefore, development,
(c) the use of the subject premises as a restaurant does not constitute use as a ‘shop’ as defined in article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, because a restaurant use is expressly excluded from the definition of ‘shop’ under article 5(1) of these Regulations, and
(d) there are no provisions in the Act or Regulations whereby such development would be exempted:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the change of use of unit number 4 Woodquay from shop to use as a restaurant for the consumption of food on the premises at number 4 Woodquay, Ennis, County Clare is development and is not exempted development.
Matters considered
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated this day 29th January 2018
04.RL3509
Cork County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of part of the Futura Frames Factory to provide ancillary storage for Brandon Vale Fine Cheeses, at Laragh, Bandon, County Cork, is, or is not development, or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Futura Frames Limited care of McCutcheon Halley Walsh of 6 Joyce House, Barrack Square, Ballincollig, County Cork requested a declaration on this question from Cork County Council and the Council issued a declaration on the 20th day of September, 2016 stating that the matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Futura Frames Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 17th day of October, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, including the definitions of ‘industrial building’, ‘light industrial building’, ‘industrial process’ and ‘repository’,
(c) Article 10 and Classes 4 and 5 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended,
(d) the nature of the change of use that is the subject of the request for the declaration and referral, and
(e) the planning history of the subject premises and in particular, planning register reference number 97/5596 (An Bord Pleanála reference PL 04.104291) and condition number 14 of that permission, and planning register reference number 04/2973 and condition number 2 of that permission.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) the premises that are the subject matter of the referral consist of part of a factory and factory extension, as indicated on maps and plans submitted to the planning authority on the 11th day of July 2016 and the 30th day of August 2016. Such factory and factory extension is a separate building from the separate premises used by Bandon Vale Fine Cheeses,
(b) the factory extension that is the subject of this referral was permitted under planning register reference number 97/5596 (An Bord Pleanála reference PL 04,104291) and planning register reference number 04/2973, to Futura Frames Ltd., and these planning permissions included conditions to control the use of the building, notwithstanding the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) such permitted use would come within the scope of Class 4 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, and within the definition of “industrial building”; and “light industrial building”,
(d) the use of the subject premises to provide ancillary storage for Brandon Vale Fine Cheeses, for the storage of cheese and packaging, would come within the scope of Class 5 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, and within the definition of a “repository”.
(e) On the basis of the documentation submitted with the referral, the use for the storage of cheese and packaging is not ancillary or incidental to the permitted use of the subject premises, that is, for the manufacture of window frames and related products, and the subject premises wherein such storage takes place is physically separated from the premises operated by Bandon Vale Fine Cheeses,
(f) the change of use, being from Class 4 to Class 5, constitutes a material change of use, and is therefore development, and
(g) there are no exemptions, in the Planning and Development Act and Regulations, by which the subject material change of use would be exempted development, and any such development would, in any event, not be exempted development under Article 10 (1) (b), having regard to the terms of condition number 2 of the permission granted under planning register reference number 04/2973, and the development in this instance is not, therefore, exempted development.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by Section 5 (3)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, hereby decides that the use of part of the Futura Frames Factory to provide ancillary storage for Brandon Vale Fine Cheeses, at Laragh, Bandon, County Cork, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 28th day of February 2017.
91.RL.3452
Limerick City and County
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of lands for community allotments within a permitted pitch and putt course at Newtown, Monaleen Road, Castletroy, Limerick is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Eugene Harrington of “Clogher”, Monaleen Road, Castletroy, County Limerick requested a declaration on the said question from Limerick City and County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 14th day of December, 2015 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Eugene Harrington referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 19th day of January, 2016:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to–
(a) Section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(c) Section 4(1)(a) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(d) article 6(1) and article 9(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(e) Parts 1 and 3 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(f) the planning history of the site,
(g) the nature and scale of the change of use in this context (circa 1000 square metres used as allotments), and
(h) the pattern of development in the area:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the permitted use of the lands is for pitch & putt,
(b) the use of the lands for allotments comes within the meaning of either allotments or agriculture pursuant to section 2(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(c) the change of use from pitch & putt to allotments does not constitute a material change of use of the land pursuant to section 3(1) of the Planning & Development Act, 2000, and, therefore, does not constitute development, and:
(d) the change of use does not constitute development as defined in section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of lands for community allotments within a permitted pitch and putt course at Newtown, Monaleen Road, Castletroy, Limerick is not development.
Dated 24 May 2016
29S.RL.3087
Dublin City
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of the set back area in front of houses numbers 1 and 2 Dunville Close, Ranelagh, Dublin, (the subject of condition number 4 attached to the grant of permission issued by An Bord Pleanála in the case of planning appeal PL 29S.211757 (planning authority register reference number 1232/05) for car parking, given that under the terms of the condition it forms part of the public lane, constitutes development, that is, material change of use as defined in section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended) is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Louise Halpin and John Foley and Patrick Halpin care of Jim Brogan Planning and Development Consultant of Unit B1 Laurel Lodge Business Centre, Castleknock, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 19th day of February, 2013 stating that the said matter is not exempted development: AND WHEREAS the said Louise Halpin and John Foley and Patrick Halpin referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 19th day of March, 2013:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, and
(b) the planning history of the site, and in particular, condition number 4 of An Bord Pleanála appeal reference number PL 29S.211757 (planning authority register reference number 1232/05).
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
the use of the set back area for the parking of cars is not a change of use of the area, being a use which is considered to be one that would normally take place on a public lane, and is envisaged by the terms of the said condition number 4 of An Bord Pleanála appeal reference number PL 29S.211757 (planning authority register reference number 1232/05).
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of the set back area in front of houses numbers 1 and 2 Dunville Close, Ranelagh, Dublin is not development. Dated this 23 August, 2013.
28.RL.3021
CORK CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether:
(a) the change of use from car showroom with ancillary petrol filling station to petrol filling station and forecourt retail shop (exceeding 100 square metres net retail floor space),
(b) the further sub-division of the former car showroom into additional shops and other non-retail commercial units, and
(c) the replacement of a former canopy structure and roadside sign with a new significantly larger canopy structure and new roadside gantry sign
at Turner’s Cross Motors, Kinsale Road, Cork are or are not development or are or are not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Cork City Council of City Hall, Cork on the 10th day of July, 2012:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b) Articles 5, 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) Class 14(d) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(d) the planning history of the site, and
(e) the layout of the premises as now constituted:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the change of use from car showroom with ancillary petrol filling station to petrol filling station and forecourt retail shop (exceeding 100 square metres net retail floor space) constitutes a material change of use in accordance with section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which would generally come within the scope of Class 14(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, but because of the operation of limitations imposed by Article 10(2) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, does not fall within the scope of exemption provided for under Class 14(a) in this instance as the associated shop exceeds the maximum permitted 100 square metres net floor area to avail of this exemption and is, therefore, not exempted development,
(b) the further sub-division of the former car showroom into additional shops and other non-retail commercial units constitutes development in accordance with section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and cannot avail of any exemptions provided for under the Planning and Development Act, 2000 or the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and, therefore, is not exempted development, and
(c) the replacement of a former canopy structure and roadside sign with a new significantly larger canopy structure and new roadside gantry sign constitutes development in accordance with section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and cannot avail of any exemptions provided for under the Planning and Development Act or the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 and, therefore, is not exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that:
(a) the change of use from car showroom with ancillary petrol filling station to petrol filling station and forecourt retail shop (exceeding 100 square metres net retail floor space),
(b) the further sub-division of the former car showroom into additional shops and other non-retail commercial units, and
(c) the replacement of a former canopy structure and roadside sign with a new significantly larger canopy structure and new roadside gantry sign, at Turner’s Cross Motors, Kinsale Road, Cork are development and are not exempted development.
Dated June 7, 2013.
13.RL.2927
LIMERICK COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of an existing building as a pharmacy at Bridge Street/Market Street, Abbeyfeale, County Limerick is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Edmond McElligot of Rathoran, Kilmorna, Listowel, County Kerry requested a declaration on the said question from Limerick County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 26th day of August, 2011 stating that the said matter is development and is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Edmond McElligot referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 20th day of September, 2011:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a)sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b)the submissions made in connection with the referral, and
(c)the history and pattern of use of the site.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a)the change of use from a premises used primarily for the purposes of storage and display to a pharmacy/shop constitutes a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended,
(b)notwithstanding the conclusion contained in paragraph (a) above, based on the evidence submitted the period of non-use of the premises in question for any retail activity has extended over such a period that would represent an abandonment of use,
(c)notwithstanding the conclusions contained in paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the use of the subject site as a pharmacy necessitates the subdivision of a single commercial premises into two pharmacy/shop units and has given rise to increased commercial activity which has material consequences in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and
(d)the said subdivision of a single commercial premises, referred to in paragraph (c) above, would constitute a change of use which is considered to be a material change of use, being intensification of the use of the land by virtue of the increased vehicular/pedestrian traffic and advertising signage:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of an existing building as a pharmacy at Bridge Street/Market Street, Abbeyfeale, County Limerick is development and is not exempted development.
Dated August 29, 2012
29S.RL.2879
DUBLIN CITY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of a premises as a guest house and restaurant with a publican’s on-licence in lieu of the use of the premises as a guest house and restaurant with a special restaurant licence at number 15 Upper Stephen Street, Dublin is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Patrick Joseph O’Boy care of S. Ní Fhloinn Architects of 36 Glencairn Lawn, Sandyford, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dublin City Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 28th day of April, 2011 stating that the said matter is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Patrick Joseph O’Boy referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 24th day of May, 2011:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3, and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended
(b) articles 5, 6 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended,
(c) article 3 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2005,
(d) Classes of Use classes 1-11 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(e) the submissions made during the course of the referral, and
(f) the physical layout of the premises:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) an additional use, that being a public house, is introduced for part of the premises arising from a publican’s on-licence in lieu of a special restaurant licence, which is not an incidental use to the main use as a guest house and restaurant,
(b) the public house use is a change of use and is materially different from the established guest house and restaurant uses by reason of changes to trading patterns, likely impacts on neighbouring residential amenity, and social behaviour, thus constituting development within the meaning of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, and
(c) there is no provision for exemption for change of use from guest house or restaurant to public house under the exempted development provisions of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the use of the premises as a guest house and restaurant with a publican’s on-licence in lieu of the use of the premises as a guest house and restaurant with a special restaurant licence at number 15 Upper Stephen Street, Dublin constitutes a material change of use and is, therefore, development and is not exempted development. Dated September 23, 2011
09.RL.2770
KILDARE COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether gaming, including the installation of 6 number poker machines, at Nolan’s Public House, The Square, Kildare, County Kildare, is or is not development and is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Patrick Flanagan care of Vincent JP Farry and Company Limited of Suite 180, 28 South Frederick Street, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Kildare County Council and no declaration issued by the planning authority:
AND WHEREAS the said Patrick Flanagan referred the question for decision to An Bord Pleanála on the 27th day of July, 2010:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended;
(b) Articles 5, 6(1), 9(1), 10(1) and 10(2) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended;
(c) Part 1 and Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, as amended;
(d) the established use of the structure as a public house by virtue of the use being in operation prior to the 1 st day of October, 1964, and
(e) the authorised use of a restricted area of the structure for use as an ‘amusement arcade for nongaming machines’, granted by An Bord Pleanála on the 13th day of September, 1999 under appeal reference number PL 09.110283 (planning register reference number 98/1872):
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that:
(a) the use for gaming, including installation of poker machines, of that part of Nolan’s Public House authorised (under appeal reference number PL 09.110283) for use as an ‘amusement arcade for non-gaming machines’ constitutes a change of use which is considered to constitute a material change of use and constitutes development within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000;
(b) the said use for gaming, including installation of poker machines, of that part of Nolan’s Public House authorised for use as an ‘amusement arcade for nongaming machines’ does not constitute exempted development under section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, or under articles 6(1) or 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001;
(c) the use for gaming, including installation of poker machines, within the remaining part of the licensed premises, Nolan’s Public House, the authorised use of which is use as a ‘public house’, constitutes a change of use which is considered to constitute a material change of use and constitutes development within the meaning of section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, and
(d) the said use for gaming, including installation of poker machines, within the said remaining part of the licensed premises, Nolan’s Public House, does not come within the scope of the exempted development provisions set out at section 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, or under articles 6(1) or 10(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3) (b) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, hereby decides that gaming, including the installation of 6 number poker machines, at Nolan’s Public House, The Square, Kildare, County Kildare, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated November 30, 2010
22.RL.2657
NORTH TIPPERARY COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the change of use from a school to a dwelling at Roskeen, Thurles, County Tipperary is or is not development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to North Tipperary County Council, who decided on the 6th day of August, 2009 that the development constitutes development and is not exempted development:
AND WHERE An Bord Pleanála by Mary O’Malley of Roskeen, Thurles, County Tipperary referred the said question to An Bord Pleanála on the 1st day of September, 2009:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(c) class 14 of Part 1 and Part 4 of Schedule 2 of the said Regulations, and
(d) the nature of school use and residential use:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) School use, in general, revolves around school hours and takes place during term time. Residential use, however, is a continual activity, not limited to particular hours or months of the year.
(b) The continuous nature of the occupancy of a dwelling is therefore materially different from that of a school, with materially different impacts on the amenities of property in the vicinity.
NOW THEREFORE
An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that that the change of use of the said school to a dwelling house at Roskeen, Thurles, County Tipperary, constitutes a material change of use and is development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated February 24, 2010
34.RL.2590
ATHLONE TOWN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises at an existing shop premises at Bunnavally, Kilmacuagh, Athlone, County Westmeath is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Doreen Allen care of Patrick A. Deavy of 34 Mayfield Grove, Athlone, County Westmeath requested a declaration on the said question from Athlone Town Council and the said Council issued a declaration on the 17th day of October, 2008 stating that the said sale of hot food is not incidental to the use of the premises and the said use of the shop for carrying out of a takeaway business is development and is unauthorised development:
AND WHEREAS the said Doreen Allen referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on the 12th day of November, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to –
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) the definition of a shop under article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001, and as amended by the Planning and Development Regulations, 2005,
(c) the internal layout of the premises, and
(d) the material planning consequences arising in relation to traffic, noise and general disturbance:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that –
(a) the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises in this particular case is not subsidiary to the principal shop use, and
(b) the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises results in a material change of use from the use of this shop for the retail sale of groceries:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the sale of hot food for consumption off the premises at an existing shop premises at Bunnavally, Kilmacuagh, Athlone, County Westmeath is development and is not exempted development.
MATTERS CONSIDERED
In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated July 17, 2009.
79.RL.2503
THURLES TOWN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the refurbishment/change of use of an existing residential unit at 56 Mitchel Street, Thurles, County Tipperary for use as “emergency accommodation” for not more than six persons deemed to be homeless is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Thurles Town Council on the 15th day of January, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) article 6 of the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001,
(c) class 14 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations, and
(d) the particulars received by the Board from the prospective operator on the 20th day of February, 2008:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the house at 56 Mitchel Street would be used as a residence for persons who come within the scope of class 14 of Pt 1 of Sch.2 to the Planning and Development Regulations, 2001:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5(4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said refurbishment/ change of use of an existing residential unit at 56 Mitchel Street, Thurles, County Tipperary for use as “emergency accommodation” for not more than six persons deemed to be homeless is development and is exempted development:
MATTERS CONSIDERED In making its decision, the Board had regard to those matters to which, by virtue of the Planning and Development Acts and Regulations made thereunder, it was required to have regard. Such matters included any submissions and observations received by it in accordance with statutory provisions.
Dated August 18, 2008
17.RL.2353
MEATH COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether (a) changes to the internal layout, (b) the use of the first floor as a bar/function room as opposed to a restaurant, (c) the use of the first floor for private functions that include the playing of music, (d) the use of the first floor for public events, where an admission fee is charged, that include the playing of music at O’Brien’s Restaurant, Johnstown, County Meath is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Meath County Council on June 6, 2006:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(c) the planning history on the site, and
(c) the layout of the premises as now constituted:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the planning permissions granted in respect of the premises principally provided for a public bar and lounge together with facilities for social functions at ground floor and a restaurant with associated kitchen at first floor,
(b) the current use of the premises includes public bar, with ancillary restaurant use, at ground floor level and incorporation of the first floor into the public bar, with associated use for functions, including with music,
(c) the said use of the first floor as public bar, with associated use for functions, constitutes an intensification of use which has material consequences in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area,
(d) a material change of use of the first floor has taken place in respect of which no valid planning permission subsists, and
(e) the changes to the internal layout of the premises have been made to facilitate the said material change of use and are not authorised by any planning permission:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said (a) changes to the internal layout, (b) use of the first floor as a bar/ function room, (c) use of the first floor for private functions, and (d) use of the first floor for public events, where an admission fee is charged, that include playing of music at O’Brien’s Restaurant, Johnstown, County Meath constitute development and are not exempted development.
Dated April 2, 2007
39.RL.2295
BRAY TOWN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of enclosed seating area and retractable canopies at Katie Gallagher’s Public House, Strand Road, Bray, County Wicklow is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Joseph Duggan and Sons Limited care of William Doran of 7 Saint Mary’s Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Wicklow County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on October 28, 2005 stating that the said development was not development and was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Joseph Duggan and Sons Limited referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on November 7, 2005:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) article 9 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and
(c) Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the said Regulations:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the said retractable canopies constitute works within the meaning of section 3 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and are exempted in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Planning and Development Regulations 2001,
(b) the use of enclosed seating area constitutes a material change of use being an extension of sheltered public floor area and, therefore, an intensification of the use of the land, and
(c) the intensification of use of the outdoor area constitutes a material change of use in terms of the proper planning and sustainable development of the area:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 (3) (a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of enclosed seating area and retractable canopies at Katie Gallagher’s Public House, Strand Road, Bray, County Wicklow is development and is not exempted development.
Dated June 21, 2006.
01.RL.2192
CARLOW COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether development comprising the change of use of permitted holiday apartments to permanent residential accommodation at The Dolmen Hotel, Kilkenny Road, Carlow is or is not development and is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Carlow County Council on September 22, 2004:
AND WHEREASAn Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) (a) sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000,
(b) (b) articles 5(1) and 10 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 2001, and
(c) (c) the planning history of the site with particular reference to planning register reference numbers 98/661 and 01/620:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the said change of use constitutes development, being a material change of use having regard to its character and impact on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, and
(b) no provision is made, in the said Act or Regulations by which the said change of use would constitute exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said change of use of the 48 dwelling units at the Dolmen Hotel, Carlow, from holiday apartments to permanent residential accommodation, is development and is not exempted development.
Dated February 4, 2005
06D.RL.2103
DUN LAOGHAIRE-RATHDOWN COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether development comprising the use of the rear of a premises at 6A Lower George’s Street, Dun Laoghaire, County Dublin as a commercial laundry is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS Kings Laundry care of Buckley Partnership of Glenrue, Ballinclea Road, Killiney, County Dublin requested a declaration on the said question from Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council and the said Council issued a declaration on October 9,2003 stating that the said development was not exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said Kings Laundry referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on November 5, 2003:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) Section 3 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963;
(b) Article 8(1) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994; and
(c) Article 11(4)(b)(v) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations, 1994:
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that-
(a) use as a commercial laundry is light industrial use;
(b) use as a scrap yard is not light industrial use; and
(c) a change of use from use as a scrap yard to a commercial laundry would not be exempted development:
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said use of the rear of a premises as a commercial laundry is development and is not exempted development.
Dated March 18, 2004
67.RL.2021
LISTOWEL TOWN
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the proposed light industrial use/use of Unit 5, Clieveragh Commercial Park, Clieveragh, Listowel, County Kerry is development and is or is not exempted development
AND WHEREAS Liam Davis care of McCutcheon Hogan of The Lodge, Proby’s Quay, Cork requested a declaration on the said question from Listowel Town Council and the said Council issued a declaration on August 27, 2002 stating that the said development was not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said Liam Davis referred the declaration for review to An Bord Pleanála on September 24, 2002.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) the evidence of the established use of unit 5 for storage purposes as a separate entity from the remainder of the factory premises,
(b) sections 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and
(c) article 10 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, with particular reference to classes 4 and 5 of Part 4 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the said proposed light industrial use of unit 5 would constitute a material change of use.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said proposed light industrial use of unit 5 is not exempted development.
Dated March 26, 2003.
20.RL.2140
ROSCOMMON COUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether quarrying activities, including the processing, crushing, screening and drill and blast methodology extraction, at Letfordspark, Boyle, County Roscommon is or is not development or is or is not exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Roscommon County Council on February 19, 2004.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to—
(a) sections 2,3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963; and
(b) sections 2, 3 and 4 and ss.127 to 132 (inclusive) of the Planning and Development Act2000.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that—
(a) the use of part of the land for the quarrying of rock commenced prior to the appointed day (namely October 1, 1964);
(b) the use of the land for quarrying was not abandoned at any stage since the appointed day;
(c) the use of the land at present for the quarrying and processing of rock involves intensification of use to a degree which has resulted in the making of a material change in the use of the land relative to the use on the appointed day having regard to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area; and
(d) the change in the use of the land comes within the meaning of “development” as defined in s.3(1) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 and as defined in s.3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, being a material change of use.
NOW THEREFOREAn Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by s.5 (4) of the 2000 Act, hereby decides that the said quarrying activities including the processing, crushing, screening and drill and blast methodology extraction at Letfordspark, Boyle, County Roscommon is development and is not exempted development.
Dated June 24, 2004.
04.RL.2039
CORKCOUNTY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether development comprising the change of use of shop to showroom for the display and sale of uPVC doors, windows, panelling and other uPVC products at 1 Oakfield Lawn, Riverstown, Glanmire, County Cork is or is not development or exempted development.
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by Cork County Council on November 18, 2002.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála, in considering this referral, had regard particularly to-
(a) sections 3 and 4 of the Planning and Development Act 2000,
(b) article 5(1) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, and
(c) the planning history of the site.
AND WHEREAS An Bord Pleanála has concluded that the change of use of the shop to use as a showroom for the display and sale of uPVC doors, windows, panelling and other uPVC products is not a material change of use.
NOW THEREFORE An Bord Pleanála, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 hereby decides that the said use of the shop as a showroom for the display and sale of uPVC doors, windows, panelling and other uPVC products is not development.
Dated April 8, 2003.
19.RF.0908
COUNTY OFFALY
WHEREAS a question has arisen as to whether the use of the Saint John of God Convent by Kedron Counselling and Therapy Centre for residential and non-residential counselling and care services at Saint Mary’s Road, Edenderry, County Offaly is or is not development or exempted development:
AND WHEREAS the said question was referred to An Bord Pleanála by the Council of the County of Offaly on the 7th day of July, 1999:
AND WHEREAS the Board, in considering this reference, had regard particularly to–
sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963, and articles 5, 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994, with particular reference to classes 7, 8 and 9 of Part IV of the Second Schedule to the Regulations:
AND WHEREAS the Board has concluded –
(a) while the previous use of the building as a convent included use for counselling and related services, such services were ancillary to the use of the building as a convent,
(b) a change of use has occurred in the building from being predominantly within the scope of class 7 to being predominantly within the scope of classes 8(d) and 9 (a), and
(c) the change of use does not come within the scope of article 11 (1) of the 1994 Regulations and constitutes a material change in the use of the building which comes within the meaning of “development” in section 3 of the 1963 Act:
NOW THEREFORE the Board, in exercise of the powers conferred on it by section 5 of the 1963 Act, has decided that the said use of Saint John of God Convent by Kedron Counselling and Therapy Centre for residential and non–residential counselling and care services is development and is not exempted development.
Dated this 22nd day of February 2000.