Target shooting and Clay Pigeon Shooting

Paddy Mc Ginn

Is it legal to target shoot with a shotgun on your own land if you’re living in the countryside? Also can you own a clay pigeon machine and do clay pigeon shooting on your own land?

Grizzly 45

Yes... So long as you can contain the flying shot and broken clays in your land.
As well as being a good neighbour and not bothering everyone at 8 AM on a Sunday, every Sunday with running 300 rounds downrange.
IOW use common sense and courtesy if you have close on neighbours.

cookimonster

Someone educate me here... can you in deed target shoot with a shot gun outside of an authorised range - not clay pigeon shooting but 'target shooting' static targets.


Is the issue here 'static targets', in other words an individual can't shoot targets, wheather formal bulls eye or plastic milk bottles outside of an authorised range.

or

Is the exception the type of firearm - ie use of shotgun and not a pistol or rifle.

or

Back to target types, is it because the target is moving.


Even better is it one of those makey uppy spur of the moment things that left something in or out of the various legal reviews?

Grizzly 45

cookimonster wrote: »

Someone educate me here... can you in deed target shoot with a shot gun outside of an authorised range - not clay pigeon shooting but 'target shooting' static targets.

D'ya mean with shotgun slugs? No! they be restricted ammo and you can only use them on a range

Is the issue here 'static targets', in other words an individual can't shoot targets, wheather formal bulls eye or plastic milk bottles outside of an authorised range.

I'd hazard a guess that it was more like at the time lads belting away at any old target they fancied in their back 40 lot,or wherever, where they had been doing so without a bother for years, with little or no backstops.

But with the Celtic Tiger coming along and houses popping up like mushrooms, someone's rounds might have been whizzing into someone's windows or gable ends or whatnot.
Bad enough if they were .22s but with the loosening of bigger calibres at the same time in legislation...Maybe they figured they had to do something before it was a 308 going into someone's window!

I base this on having a chat with the CRI from the DOJ, about this difference between zeroing and shooting targets on your land. His main concern is safety 1st and foremost, and that you are able to account for every single round not leaving your property intact or in a" rick o shea".

A shotgun OTOH while maybe being able to carry isn't throwing a single solid bullet[in most cases] and birdshot isn't going to do that much damage or injury coming down from a missed clay and is pretty much dissipated by 70 meters

Even better is it one of those makey uppy spur of the moment things that left something in or out of the various legal reviews?

You'll have to ask a certain Mr Mc Doughl SC , barrister at law and former PD minister for justice as to his reasoning behind this was. As he is the chief architect of this one.

cookimonster

Thanks Grizz and to put a culinary perspective on it it seems to be a 'Spice Box of Reasoning'..... a little bit of everything to make it all come together.

Cass

You can target shoot, with a shotgun, anywhere as target shooting with a shotgun is not classed as target shooting. IOW clay pigeon shooting is not classed as target shooting. Other than the insurance/liability and other safety issues you could set it up in your back garden (but don't, please don't).

Richard308

Grizzly 45 wrote: »

D'ya mean with shotgun slugs? No! they be restricted ammo and you can only use them on a range



I'd hazard a guess that it was more like at the time lads belting away at any old target they fancied in their back 40 lot,or wherever, where they had been doing so without a bother for years, with little or no backstops.

But with the Celtic Tiger coming along and houses popping up like mushrooms, someone's rounds might have been whizzing into someone's windows or gable ends or whatnot.
Bad enough if they were .22s but with the loosening of bigger calibres at the same time in legislation...Maybe they figured they had to do something before it was a 308 going into someone's window!

I base this on having a chat with the CRI from the DOJ, about this difference between zeroing and shooting targets on your land. His main concern is safety 1st and foremost, and that you are able to account for every single round not leaving your property intact or in a" rick o shea".

A shotgun OTOH while maybe being able to carry isn't throwing a single solid bullet[in most cases] and birdshot isn't going to do that much damage or injury coming down from a missed clay and is pretty much dissipated by 70 meters



You'll have to ask a certain Mr Mc Doughl SC , barrister at law and former PD minister for justice as to his reasoning behind this was. As he is the chief architect of this one.

I think a motivation maybe that someone fired shots through his house in rooskey co Roscommon. In 2005 if my memory isn’t failing

Richard308

Cass wrote: »

You can target shoot, with a shotgun, anywhere as target shooting with a shotgun is not classed as target shooting. IOW clay pigeon shooting is not classed as target shooting. Other than the insurance/liability and other safety issues you could set it up in your back garden (but don't, please don't).

Unfortunately this is not true, the following article I will put in context. A few lads used get together maybe one or two days a month for clays. Neighbors who ordinarily weren’t resident (holiday homes close to half a mile away lodged a complaint to the council.

They held a fundraiser etc for a special Olympian ( akin to a plowing match with no planning)

https://m.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/farmer-agrees-to-limits-on-clay-pigeon-shooting-27393117.html

cookimonster

After reading that article, I would describe the scenario as a 'perfect storm' in relation to a set of events and circumstances coming together.

As a former member of a small clay pigeon club, on a farmers land, I'm aware of quite a few similar set ups through out the country. Most consist of a simple layout - a few traps / trap houses / tower augmented by a shed / container/ caravan. These would operate on a weekly if not bi-weekly basis (longer summer days). If set up like ours was, discreetly and in line with a recommended safety template there shouldn't be an issue. I'm so confident in saying that because lads in the club used to use it when applying for or renewing thier firearms licence.

In the case of the article, the mention of out houses / buildings seem to suggest more may have been going on other than a lads passion for clay shooting. To restrict yourself to 6 shoots in the year, especially if you are passionate about the sport, seems a bit harsh and overly restrictive. If my memory serves me right we would organise a Christmas shoot and then break for until the new year but other wise it was buisness as usual all year.

Cass

Richard308 wrote: »

Unfortunately this is not true,

Which part? I raise two or three points in my post.

A few lads used get together maybe one or two days a month for clays.

Perfectly legal.

Neighbors who ordinarily weren’t resident (holiday homes close to half a mile away lodged a complaint to the council.

Notice how it was not to AGS?

The complaint, according to the article, was solely a planning permission one. AGS were not involved and the chap needed no range authorisation from the DoJ to hold the shoots.

If you are referring to having it in a back yard then while my point above was somewhat insincere or facetious it still stands barring the obvious issues as i said above:

Cass wrote:

Other than the insurance/liability and other safety issues you could set it up in your back garden (but don't, please don't).

So i fail to see how anything i said was wrong. A newspaper article does not disprove my points, especially one that is 11 years old, referencing an incident from 12 years ago all of which was before the range SI 622/2011 (not that it would have any impact on clay shooting).

A post of mine from 2016 saying the same thing:

Cass wrote:

Clay pigeon shooting is not, under the law, classed as target shooting. As such clay pigeon ranges do not need this authorisation. In essence you could set one up out your back and if consideration was given to planning permission, noise, etc. that is all you'd need.

A clay range is easier that way, but also has drawbacks. An authorised range can allow new people to the sport to come onto the range, and under supervision, shoot unrestricted guns. A clay cannot as they don't have the same classification as an authorised range and so don't have the same laws to abide by or protect them.

Some clay ranges may pay and get the authorisation in which case you're fine. Also some authorised ranges have clay ranges on them and so you're covered by these same laws.

And another post, and another, and another, and another, and another, and ............. well you get the point.

Clay pigeon ranges do not require authorisation therefore need not follow the rules and guidelines of the DoJ in relation to how a range is built and run as per SI 622/2011. You can set up such a clay "range" anywhere and its continued operation is solely dependent on safety issues (location, proximity, noise, etc) as per my posts above, again.

If you intend to build a permanent or semi permanent structure to cater for people at a shoot then that is a planning issue and nothing to do with the firearms act, range SI, AGS or Doj.

Richard308

Cass wrote: »

Which part? I raise two or three points in my post.
Perfectly legal.

Notice how it was not to AGS?

The complaint, according to the article, was solely a planning permission one. AGS were not involved and the chap needed no range authorisation from the DoJ to hold the shoots.

If you are referring to having it in a back yard then while my point above was somewhat insincere or facetious it still stands barring the obvious issues as i said above:

So i fail to see how anything i said was wrong. A newspaper article does not disprove my points, especially one that is 11 years old, referencing an incident from 12 years ago all of which was before the range SI 622/2011 (not that it would have any impact on clay shooting).

A post of mine from 2016 saying the same thing:


And another post, and another, and another, and another, and another, and ............. well you get the point.

Clay pigeon ranges do not require authorisation therefore need not follow the rules and guidelines of the DoJ in relation to how a range is built and run as per SI 622/2011. You can set up such a clay "range" anywhere and its continued operation is solely dependent on safety issues (location, proximity, noise, etc) as per my posts above, again.

If you intend to build a permanent or semi permanent structure to cater for people at a shoot then that is a planning issue and nothing to do with the firearms act, range SI, AGS or Doj.

It wasn’t legal, just because it was not a criminal offence doesn’t mean it was lawful.

The buildings had little to nothing to do with it. It was the act of the shooting.

Just like if I walk through someone’s property on a walk with no criminal intent other than to pass over it to gain access elsewhere. It is unlawful, just not a criminal offence.

I think the issue is, if there’s a complaint and they’re willing to bring the council, solicitors in on it is the problem.

Grizzly 45

Going to be all soddin irrevelant anyway with that lead ban!:mad:

You wont be able to shoot in your own land if it so much as holds a puddle of water or has a clump of reeds growing on it ,as that is now an official "wetland" according to the dear and benevolent leaders in the EU.
So all some busy body annoyed by the noise, has to do is make a complaint about you shooting in wetlands to shut you down.

Cass

Richard308 wrote: »

It wasn’t legal, just because it was not a criminal offence doesn’t mean it was lawful.

Let me understand what you're saying. If it NOT criminal, its still not lawful. Thats the very definition of lawful, not illegal.

Lawful : conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.

The buildings had little to nothing to do with it. It was the act of the shooting.

Missed that bit. Would you quote the piece where An Gardaí were involved and the guy was prosecuted for shooting outside an authorised range.

The piece i read, that you linked to, said the issue was planning permission for the structure he erected to accommodate the activity:

The council had first contacted Mr Doherty in 2004 raising concerns over the operation of a clay pigeon shooting range and the erection of buildings and structures associated with the activity which had not been granted planning.

Then an agreement was reached between the farmer and council to only have shooting 8 days per year:

A GLENFLESK sheep farmer with a passion for clay pigeon shooting has agreed to limit shoots on his own lands to just eight days per year, bringing to an end a six-year saga

Subsequently brought before the circuit court, on March 16 an agreement was reached between Mr Doherty and the planning authority to allow eight days shooting per year with up to five friends.

So if the issue was shooting outside a range then AGS would be involved and the shooting stopped, in its entirety, until range authorisation was gained.

As clay pigeon shooting is not target shooting no such authorisation is needed.

Just like if I walk through someone’s property on a walk with no criminal intent other than to pass over it to gain access elsewhere. It is unlawful, just not a criminal offence.

If you have permission its not. If you don't its trespass, and with a gun, possibly armed trespass.

The point above is moot as the people involved, including the land owner, were guests/invitees onto the land so trespass is a moot/irrelevant point.

I think the issue is, if there’s a complaint and they’re willing to bring the council, solicitors in on it is the problem.

Its a civil matter, not criminal. This case is actually a great example of my points. The council were not happy with him building a structure without planning permission to accommodate the people attending. They, going by the context fo the article, seemed to imply the land owner was operating a business which has a whole other host of legal requirements in terms of insurance, planning permission, etc. but his defense was it was charity and non profit.

As said the lack of any intervention by AGS or DoJ proves the point.

Richard308

Cass wrote: »

Let me understand what you're saying. If it NOT criminal, its still not lawful. Thats the very definition of lawful, not illegal.



Missed that bit. Would you quote the piece where An Gardaí were involved and the guy was prosecuted for shooting outside an authorised range.

The piece i read, that you linked to, said the issue was planning permission for the structure he erected to accommodate the activity:


Then an agreement was reached between the farmer and council to only have shooting 8 days per year:


So if the issue was shooting outside a range then AGS would be involved and the shooting stopped, in its entirety, until range authorisation was gained.

As clay pigeon shooting is not target shooting no such authorisation is needed.


If you have permission its not. If you don't its trespass, and with a gun, possibly armed trespass.

The point above is moot as the people involved, including the land owner, were guests/invitees onto the land so trespass is a moot/irrelevant point.


Its a civil matter, not criminal. This case is actually a great example of my points. The council were not happy with him building a structure without planning permission to accommodate the people attending. They, going by the context fo the article, seemed to imply the land owner was operating a business which has a whole other host of legal requirements in terms of insurance, planning permission, etc. but his defense was it was charity and non profit.

As said the lack of any intervention by AGS or DoJ proves the point.

Ok, it seems you’re having a difficulty understanding what I’m trying to tell you, not able to differentiate between a criminal offence and a civil offence (both illegal and unlawful)I’m busy at the minute but I’ll give you a more detailed explanation when I’ve a bit of time.
This is a useful example.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/farming/arid-30819788.html%3ftype=amp

BattleCorp

Richard308 wrote: »

Ok, it seems you’re having a difficulty understanding what I’m trying to tell you, not able to differentiate between a criminal offence and a civil offence (both illegal and unlawful)I’m busy at the minute but I’ll give you a more detailed explanation when I’ve a bit of time.
This is a useful example.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/farming/arid-30819788.html%3ftype=amp

Going by that newspaper article, it was a planning permission case and not a shooting case. The shooting thing is incidental and wasn't really what the court case was about. It was about the use of the buildings while shooting.

That said, I'm not sure why he agreed to limit his shooting to 8 days as planning permission isn't needed to do clay pigeon shooting in a field.

Cass

Richard308 wrote: »

Ok, it seems you’re having a difficulty understanding what I’m trying to tell you,

Seems so. Perhaps if you explained yourself. Such as:

Cass wrote:

Richard308 wrote:

Unfortunately this is not true,

Which part? I raise two or three points in my post.

Richard308 wrote:

not able to differentiate between a criminal offence and a civil offence

It would seem you cannot or I suppose the more accurate description would be you did not specify which bit you disagree with so there is crossing in what you're trying to say is untrue and what I am "defending" as being true. So which bit, specifically, is untrue?

Richard308 wrote:

I’m busy at the minute but I’ll give you a more detailed explanation when I’ve a bit of time.

No need, just specify which point you believe was untrue as I raised two points and you did not define which point you think is untrue. I'm sure that little step would help clear up any confusion as you seem to be saying either:

1. Clay pigeon is target shooting
2. You cannot set up a clay shoot anywhere (given the obvious safety issues i listed above)

Richard308 wrote:

This is a useful example.
https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishexaminer.com/farming/arid-30819788.html%3ftype=amp

Ah, right. Now I get what you believe is untrue.

You are referring to the planning permission aspect of a clay range, not the shooting bit which is my original/only point.

Well if you intend to build a permanent structure to accommodate a clay range/shooting then you absolutely need planning permission, however as I never brought up the issue of planning permission, never cited any 12 year old article on planning permission or even mentioned any specific case to do with panning permission, and kept my comments specifically and entirely to the act of clay pigeon shooting by saying that clay shooting can take place anywhere (given the necessary safety issues) I fail to see how how what I said is untrue. I never mentioned building anything, permanent or otherwise.

For example.

I head down to the local quarry (abandoned years ago and with permission) and myself a few lads shoot away at clays to our hearts content about once or so a month. We bring three clay launchers, a fold out table and the clays/shells. When we leave we pick up all empty cartridges and any rubbish, and the broken clays are fine where they are as the guy that owns it says they rot away.

We build no structure (permanent or otherwise) and nothing that requires planning permission as its not a commercial enterprise and as we don't run it for anything other than recreation we require no license/authorisation from the council.

So what about that is untrue or requires any sort of authorisation from the council or AGS as you alluded to above? More importantly how is it subject to civil action, hence illegal?

Perhaps your only point in this whole thread is say that if you want to build a clay range with "clubhouse" (or other structure to house/accommodate people) that you will require planning permission then i'd agree with you and frankly had you simply posted that good piece of information in that format none of this boring back and forth would have been necessary.

I fail to understand what the logic was behind quoting my post, saying it was untrue and then going off on your own tangent on a topic [planning permission] that only you brought up which had nothing to do with what i said. It would have been so much better, clearer and simpler for all to understand had you posted it as an addendum/continuation to the other posts rather than a chastization/correction of what you believed was untrue.

Richard308

Cass wrote: »

Seems so. Perhaps if you explained yourself. Such as:


It would seem you cannot or I suppose the more accurate description would be you did not specify which bit you disagree with so there is crossing in what you're trying to say is untrue and what I am "defending" as being true. So which bit, specifically, is untrue?

No need, just specify which point you believe was untrue as I raised two points and you did not define which point you think is untrue. I'm sure that little step would help clear up any confusion as you seem to be saying either:

1. Clay pigeon is target shooting
2. You cannot set up a clay shoot anywhere (given the obvious safety issues i listed above)

Ah, right. Now I get what you believe is untrue.

You are referring to the planning permission aspect of a clay range, not the shooting bit which is my original/only point.

Well if you intend to build a permanent structure to accommodate a clay range/shooting then you absolutely need planning permission, however as I never brought up the issue of planning permission, never cited any 12 year old article on planning permission or even mentioned any specific case to do with panning permission, and kept my comments specifically and entirely to the act of clay pigeon shooting by saying that clay shooting can take place anywhere (given the necessary safety issues) I fail to see how how what I said is untrue. I never mentioned building anything, permanent or otherwise.

For example.

I head down to the local quarry (abandoned years ago and with permission) and myself a few lads shoot away at clays to our hearts content about once or so a month. We bring three clay launchers, a fold out table and the clays/shells. When we leave we pick up all empty cartridges and any rubbish, and the broken clays are fine where they are as the guy that owns it says they rot away.

We build no structure (permanent or otherwise) and nothing that requires planning permission as its not a commercial enterprise and as we don't run it for anything other than recreation we require no license/authorisation from the council.

So what about that is untrue or requires any sort of authorisation from the council or AGS as you alluded to above? More importantly how is it subject to civil action, hence illegal?

Perhaps your only point in this whole thread is say that if you want to build a clay range with "clubhouse" (or other structure to house/accommodate people) that you will require planning permission then i'd agree with you and frankly had you simply posted that good piece of information in that format none of this boring back and forth would have been necessary.

I fail to understand what the logic was behind quoting my post, saying it was untrue and then going off on your own tangent on a topic [planning permission] that only you brought up which had nothing to do with what i said. It would have been so much better, clearer and simpler for all to understand had you posted it as an addendum/continuation to the other posts rather than a chastization/correction of what you believed was untrue.

I was just dealing with your original post
Cass said “ You can target shoot, with a shotgun, anywhere as target shooting with a shotgun is not classed as target shooting. IOW clay pigeon shooting is not classed as target shooting. Other than the insurance/liability and other safety issues you could set it up in your back lgarden (but don't, please don't).” Which is unlawful and illegal if there is a complaint. While the guards or doj won’t get involved, the real law is the courts and that’s where all other agencies ground their enforcement. I want jumping between topics. It’s points you’ve raised. I just don’t know how to multi quote or have the time or inclination to bother to do it.

And I stated the buildings were not found to be in contravention of planning. It was the act of the clay shooting.

Cass

Richard308 wrote:

I was just dealing with your original post

Nope, your first post immediately brought planning permission into the discussion which was not mentioned before that.

Richard308 wrote: »

Which is unlawful and illegal if there is a complaint.

No, its not. Illegality is not a prerequisite of a complaint.

While the guards or doj won’t get involved,

That in itself proves my point about it not being illegal, as was the case of the 12 year old article you linked to.

the real law is the courts and that’s where all other agencies ground their enforcement.

You have to have done something to be before the courts. In the 12 year old article you linked to it was the guy using the buildings and agreement was reached when he agreed to not use them.

and said he was happy with a requirement that he does not use any building on his lands during shoots.

I want jumping between topics.

No idea what this means.

It’s points you’ve raised.

Not I, you raised planning permission. Here it is as a reminder (post #8):

Richard308 wrote:

Unfortunately this is not true, the following article I will put in context. A few lads used get together maybe one or two days a month for clays. Neighbors who ordinarily weren’t resident (holiday homes close to half a mile away lodged a complaint to the council.

They held a fundraiser etc for a special Olympian ( akin to a plowing match with no planning)

https://m.independent.ie/regionals/k...-27393117.html

First mention of planning permission on thread and brought up by you.

I just don’t know how to multi quote or have the time or inclination to bother to do it.

Shame you're not willing to try. Its easily done.
Its not hard. Explanation here.

And I stated the buildings were not found to be in contravention of planning.

But the article, the one you linked to in post #8, says they were.

It was the act of the clay shooting.

Nope.

Richard308

Cass wrote: »

Nope, your first post immediately brought planning permission into the discussion which was not mentioned before that.

No, its not. Illegality is not a prerequisite of a complaint.

That in itself proves my point about it not being illegal, as was the case of the 12 year old article you linked to.
You have to have done something to be before the courts. In the 12 year old article you linked to it was the guy using the buildings and agreement was reached when he agreed to not use them.


No idea what this means.

Not I, you raised planning permission. Here it is as a reminder (post #8):

First mention of planning permission on thread and brought up by you.

Shame you're not willing to try. Its easily done.
Its not hard. Explanation here.


But the article, the one you linked to in post #8, says they were.

Nope.

Hi Cass, if you read the article. “ A council application restraining shooting was lodged leading to the planning application and An Bord Pleanála's decision.

Subsequently brought before the circuit court, on March 16 an agreement was reached between Mr Doherty and the planning authority to allow eight days shooting per year with up to five friends. Killarney Circuit Court on Wednesday last heard how Mr Doherty had agreed with his engineer, Pádraig Griffin, on an outline area in which to fulfil his pastime and said he was happy with a requirement that he does not use any building on his lands during shoots.”

It had nothing to do with buildings but the action of shooting. I am saying, you should be careful not to antagonize neighbors or anyone else. Even it is your own land. You need certain permissions and just because the gardai or doj don’t classify it as a range doesn’t mean it is lawful.
And it is remiss of you to encourage it, that it is lawful. I would advise anyone considering this to seek “professional legal advice”. I do not profess to be an expert or authority.

At the end of the day, it only takes one contrary neighbour or other person to upset your fun. It would be better to be considerate of your neighbours is all I am saying.

Cass

Richard308 wrote: »

Hi Cass, if you read the article.

I did.

“ A council application restraining shooting was lodged leading to the planning application and An Bord Pleanála's decision.

Yup. The council sought a stopping of the shooting because he was using a building on the farm as a "clubhouse" (my term for it, the article cites building erected in association with the activity).

It had nothing to do with buildings but the action of shooting.

Nope.

He had no planning permission to use the building for what he was using it for. He erected buildings, according to the article, in 2004 with no planning. In 2007 the council sought a court action to stop the shooting because of the lack of planning permission for the buildings he was using (as this is their only recourse as they have no authority to stop shooting themselves). This lead to the farmer applying for the planning permission in August 2009 which was subsequently refused.

On March 16th of 2010 both parties were in court and an agreement was came to. No use of the buildings as "clubhouse" or anything to do with the clay shooting and he could go on with his shooting.

I am saying, you should be careful not to antagonize neighbors or anyone else.

Always good advice.

You need certain permissions and just because the gardai or doj don’t classify it as a range doesn’t mean it is lawful.

With shotgun/clays, yes it is. Thats the law.

And it is remiss of you to encourage it,

Quote the bit where i encouraged anyone to do it.

that it is lawful.

It is lawful.

I would advise anyone considering this to seek “professional legal advice”. I do not profess to be an expert or authority.

Always get professional legal advice because to give legal advice on this forum or site is prohibited and will result in infraction and/or ban to anyone that does it.

Opinions, however, are easily and freely given.

cookimonster

Ok on doing a bit of research and I came across this -

Planning Permission

An Bord Pleanála - previous findings


Clay Pigeon Shooting on Agricultural Lands Is Not Exempted Development
Wexford County Council put a question to An Bord Pleanala as to whether the use of agricultural land at Duncormick in Wexford as a clay pigeon shoot for limited periods in any year is or is not development or is or is not exempted development:

An Bord Pleanála concluded that –

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

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

Published on November 19, 2012 By:David Mulcahy · Filed under: Rural Planning; Tagged as: clay pigeon shooting, exempted development

http://irishplanningnews.ie/tag/exempted-development/

Guidance Document based on The Firearms Act

The Garda Commissioner's Guidelines as to the Practical Application and Operation of the Firearms Acts, 1925-2009.
Issued in accordance with section 3A of The Firearms Act, 1925 as inserted by section 31 of the Criminal Justice Act, 2006.

NOTE: There is a responsibility on the owner/operator of every authorised shooting range to ensure that they are at all times in possession of an up to date authorisation for the range. Clay pigeon shooting venues and paintball sites are not defined as shooting ranges and therefore section 33 only applies to ranges used for rifle and pistol target
shooting.

The working bases of the two articles are clearly seperate to each other as neither reference one another in thier application or use. One deals solely with authorisation in respect to various aspects of the planning laws, while the other is a end note on the section dealing with range authorisations as issued by An Garda Siochana.

Sooo ..what I have learned is, claypigeon shooting on private property (that obviously doesn't contravene any other section of the law) is legal under the Firearms Act but more than likely have you run afoul of the local planning authority if they wish to pursue the matter.

Interesting to see if An Bord Pleanála would deem a single individual clay shooting under the same ruling 'development and is not exempted development'.

My apologies for the long winded reply, but I hope to keep the information in this post factual (hence quotes and references) concise and for much of it non biased or opinionated.

Richard308

Well said at Cookimonster, it’s not the buildings etc it’s change of use ie it is the activity. Just because it’s not a criminal offence doesn’t mean it’s not against the law. As we all know best to seek legal advice.
I’m sure you had to do some digging for that. Well done.

Midland fisherman

Re-reg, troll, and now banned.

cookimonster

Richard308 wrote: »

.....it’s not the buildings etc it’s change of use ie it is the activity.

Not quite, in the case of the Wexfod ruling they discuss the use of the land, but in other cases if you change the use of an exsisting building ie - storage to dwelling, domestic to commercial and so on then the orginal planning permission is null in void. In the orginal media article, https://m.independent.ie/regionals/kerryman/news/farmer-agrees-to-limits-on-clay-pigeon-shooting-27393117.html), it clearly states-

Pat Doherty, of Artigallivan, Headford, had applied for 'incidental use' of farm buildings on remote farm lands at Annaghmore, Glenflesk, for the purpose of clay pigeon shooting

Richard308 wrote: »

Just because it’s not a criminal offence doesn’t mean it’s not against the law.

Theres a set of procedures to go through before it becomes a criminal offence via the courts.

What is planning enforcement?
It deals with those who flout the law by ignoring, or not complying with, the planning process.

Who is responsible for planning and planning enforcement?
Local authorities (city or county councils) are responsible for the planning system. Their role includes enforcement relating to breaches of planning legislation and taking
action on unauthorised development. Local authorities may apply to the courts to obtain legal orders to stop unauthorised development.

What is unauthorised development?
Any development that requires planning permission or a development which is in breach of the conditions of its planning permission is classed as ‘unauthorised
development’.The term ‘development’ covers a wide range
of activities including carrying out any works (i.e. building, demolition, alteration) on, in, over or under any land or buildings and making a material (i.e. significant) change of use of structures or land. Carrying out unauthorised development is an offence and anyone who has undertaken unauthorised development may be subject
to enforcement proceedings. Enforcement is the means by which the planning authority ensures that unauthorised development becomes compliant with planning law.

What is contained in an enforcement notice?
An enforcement notice will normally:
• instruct that any development being carried out without planning permission must stop;
• instruct that if the development has planning permission but work is not being carried out in accordance with the conditions of the permission, that steps have to be taken to ensure the development is in line with the planning
permission;
• inform what steps are required to be taken within a specified period. These could include removing, or altering a structure, stopping the use of land, or returning land to its previous condition before the unauthorised development began; and
• outline that if these steps are not taken within the period stated, that the person may be guilty of an offence and that the planning authority may enter the land and do the work itself. The owner or developer will have to pay the cost of this work. The owner or developer may also have to pay other related expenses such as legal costs.

What penalties apply if you do not comply with the enforcement notice?
Where you do not comply with an enforcement notice, the planning authority can take the matter to court. Penalties for breaching planning law are set out in the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. These penalties depend on the nature of the offence but, if found guilty, you may face a criminal conviction and a fine and/or a prison sentence.

So, as with food safety law, planning permission enforcement notices are legally binding. If the individual or individuals who are the subject of an enforcement don't comply with said notice then they may be prosecuted through the courts.

There is no doubt that if the case involving Pat Doherty was in contravention of the Firearms Act then the Gaurds would be involved and it would have been dealt as such through the courts in a timely fashion and not on going for'a six-year saga (Hughes 2010)'.