Driveway width

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346783#Comment_121346783

Fair enough. Look back to a post earlier in the thread from Gumbo who indicated that the previous development plan requirement was up to 3.6m wide. That has changed obviously to 3.0m wide in the current plan but in your retention application I would be fairly confident that you or your agent will indicate that the pillars were built during the lifetime of the previous development plan. Job done.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121331173#Comment_121331173

If you apply for retention of 3060 it will be conditioned back to 3000.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121347236#Comment_121347236

Not if the works were carried out during the lifetime of the previous development plan you alluded to earlier.

sternn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121347317#Comment_121347317

How can you indicate that the works took place during the previous plan? Just mentioned on the plans somewhere? Also, are there any interactions with the planner during the process?

sternn

By the way, thank you @muffler and @Gumbo for the helpful insight here.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121347582#Comment_121347582

You or your agent should submit a cover letter with the application outlining the year the works were carried out obviously during the timeframe of the previous development plan and indicating that you were unaware that planning permission was required etc etc but do not mention the actual dimensions involved. You could also indicate that your entrance was constructed on the same basis as others in the estate/locality. Your agent should be familiar with this type of letter.

There normally isn't much interaction with the planner but they can be contacted if needs be.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121347317#Comment_121347317

I lodged a planning for one recently.

3.6m. During the 8 weeks the new development plan was adapted and the decision reflected the new DP rather than the older DP so it was conditioned to 3m.

Dublin City Council.

muffler

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121347698#Comment_121347698

Sorry Im not following that. Do you mean you submitted during the first 8 weeks of the DP having come into force? Im sort of lost also where you say 3.6m at the start.

Gumbo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121348013#Comment_121348013

DCC DP 2016-2022 allowed 3.6m entrances. I submitted a planning to widen an existing entrance for my neighbor in October 2022.

While it was in the planning process, the DP 2022-2028 was adopted and passed. This reduced the entrances allowed to 3m.

So while submitted under the older plan to widen to 3.6m, they conditioned it to 3m based on the new DP.

muffler

Thanks for clarifying Gumbo. I understand the situation now and its obvious the planner had to be bound by the new DP at decision date in your case.

However the OP's situation is a wee bit different in that its for retention and the planner will have to consider the requirements of the DP at the time the entrance was constructed. Different horses for different courses I suppose.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121345950#Comment_121345950

I understood exactly what you were saying. I’ve used this argument myself for test results. But you are simply misapplying it a specific exaggerated argument.

A more precise 3.0 would be better, that’s obvious. Still It’s incorrect to say the limit is <3.m. The actual requirement is a range, 2.5-3m. The precision of the first number sets the intent for the whole value. If it was say 60-70m, I would accept 70.2 as within range. The scale of the rounding is also relevant. You are trying to double the range from 500mm to 1000mm. That’s clearly not what was intended.

This range comes from a plan text document, not a technical spec. It is policy not legislation. The DCC interpret it as 3.0m because that’s clearly their original intent. If this were before a judge, I’d be far more confident in my ability to argue that the limit is <3.05 that yours to get <3.5m over the lime.

Can you give an example of where this ambiguity exists in legislation? It may do, and it may be possible to use that arguement in those cases. But as I said, the DCP is not legislation, that’s relevant.

Mellor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121346804#Comment_121346804

Don’t change it before submitting. They consider practicalities when deciding.

They don’t specify whether they mean the general width or the narrowest point. I’d dimension both and submit as it. I’d be surprised if they made a fuss