henno wrote:good question and one that has arisen a few times before.
my own opinion on it is that the planning regs has a statutory basis, whereas a development plan does not. The procedures that create the development plan has a statutory basis, but the policies held within do not.
Also, development plans more often than not contain suggested methods of complying to policies. In some cases development plan policies may be relaxed where the situation allows ie the open space requirement of a housing development may be relaxed if the development is located adjoining a community recreation area etc.
Dealing particularly with the issue at hand, i would see the "sustainable urban housing guidelines" as being more pertinent as to what should be considered acceptable private amenity space than a development plan. But again, these are "guidelines" and do not have a statutory basis.
so to finalise, in order to offer an opinion on the exemption of a development or not, the planning regulations hold the legislative requirements.
Just to clarify a little on this one Henno,
The body pursuing any breach of planning law, whether its the exempted development schedule or a condition of a planning permission, is the local authority.
An BÃ³rd PleanÃ¡la has no enforcement function, as they have recently informed me.
The Development Plan guidelines are actionable if breached, usually through them having been invoked in a planning condition, which has force of law.
The provisions in the exempted development sehedule in the regulations are actionable also in my understanding.
Both actions take place under a Section 160 or other provision of the Planning and Developnment Act.
But the matter under discussion here does not involve the Development Plan's desired rear garden/POS provision of say, 60 square metres, which as you rightly point out can be varied in certain circumstances.
The topic solely relates to two provisions in the exempted development schedule
- the allowance up to a limit of development - 40 square metres, within certain constraints.
- a 25 square metre POS minimum that cannot be infringed upon without seeking permission.
The minimum takes precedence IMO as I've shown in the worked example.