[quote="Devin"]Oh what a hoot!!
Except that the An Taisce planning application is for retention of an established use. This was required due to changes in licensing laws in relation to holding of small dances/private events.
My, what a lot of heat (and over such a non-event?) I'm actually OK with the proposed use and think it would be ideal for the building. My issue is with due planning process.
I'm sorry that Devin has decided not to play - because he could provide a couple of simple clarifications for me. (Really Devin you should calm down a little rather than posting nasty messages and running away).
Maybe somebody else can help:
the An Taisce planning application is for retention of an established use.
This term (established use) is commonly understood to mean a use in place on and immediately prior to 01 October 1964. Such a use, if continued (without significant interruption or intensification) does not require pp. Easy win there for you Devin - case dismissed and AT can withdraw its planning application!
This IS what you meant isn't it Devin?
Or is that the use has been in place for over 7 years without enforcement (and is therefore immune from enforcement). This is commonly know as 'unauthorised development'. This would not
be a win and AT should not withdraw their planning application.
Is the AT planning application correct in stating that the ground and lower ground floors of Tailor's Hall have permission for 'community use?'
BTW, does anyone else find Devin's threats to 'out' posters who do not toe the line to be distasteful/concerning. Or his assumption that everyone (else) has a personal agenda?
I have had two pm's threatening to 'out' me (unless, presumably, I go away)?