Driveway width

Thanks, can I go about retention now for this? what is the best route to go? I just went ahead and made my entrance wider to accept a 2nd car.

I am based in Limerick, is it a call to the Limerick City Council?

Great stuff, will do. thanks for the advice

Sure it was there under the muck when I bought the house!

If its retention planning are you not applying to retain what is existing - i.e. the 3.060m width?

Surely 60mm is not going to be critical for this anyway?

I always thought they applied a 'de minimus' rule to planning particularly with regard to dimensions - and very minor infringements on them?

F

Before you apply for retention? Your first post says you have already applied. Im confused.

I think you have misunderstood what that article is saying. Principles of rounding and accuracy means that 3m is not always the same as 3.000m. They do not say that you always round down. In this case the specification is in units of one decimal place.

3.060 to one decimal place is 3.1m. Which is definitely bigger than 3 metres (3.0m to 1DP)

Who is this so called dictator, lol.

The question is not whether a retention application can be avoided; it cannot. The question is whether a retention application will be successful.

The OP doesn't have to secure retention because the width is, or might be, greater than 3m; he has to secure retention because the vehicular entrance was created or altered without planning permission.

There's a lengthy list of exempt developments in the planning legislation; you don't need planning permission for those. If your development isn't on that list - and, regardless of its width, this one isn't - then you need planning permission. And if you carry it out without first getting planning permission, you still need planning permission (in these circumstances called "retention permission").

You've never been able to avoid the need for retention permission on the grounds that, if you had applied for planning permission in the first place, you would have got it. If you could do that, then nobody would ever apply for planning permission for anything, and the category of exempt developments would be meaningless.

Strange that the OP has been logged in since I looked for clarification but hasn't answered.

I don’t think you understand what I’m saying or what the article is saying either. The point is you report against the specification.

The lower limit is 1.2m. The upper limit is 3m not 3.0m

It is sloppy practice to have a mix of decimal places in a spec. This really should be done properly to avoid ambiguity. And it’s not the only place in the legislation that this exists.

A google search shows that at least one other country has gone to lengths to try to define what it interprets as acceptable in a similar situation. But that wouldn’t be necessary if it was written properly in the first place.

The person reviewing the application will likely assert as you seem to be doing that it is not ambiguous but it evidently is as it can be interpreted differently by different people. And that reviewer will dictate what happens.