Local authority erred in refusing to extend duration of planning permission

Planning and development – judicial review – challenge to the decision not to extend the duration of planning permission - whether the respondent is entitled to have regard to the relevant local area plan – factual background - During the currency of the Planning Permission development plan was made - application was made on the basis that the development works had not commenced because of commercial and economic considerations beyond the control of the applicant, there had been no significant changes in the development objectives in the development plan – statutory interpretation - Application also addressed the regional planning guidelines and regional spatial and economic strategy - factual errors - mistaken register reference number – principal issues – procedural history – statutory framework. - whether the respondent is correct in adopting the position that it was precluded from considering anything other than the development objectives identified in the Development Plan when deciding on whether there has been a significant change to development objectives under the Development Plan on an application under s. 42(1)(a)(ii) as contended by the respondent - error of law as to jurisdiction - established jurisprudence that the interpretation of a development plan is not equivalent to an exercise in statutory interpretation but involves considering what a reasonably intelligent person of no particular expertise would think - satisfied that in considering whether there had been a “significant change” to the development objectives in the development plan regard should be had to the local area plan adopted to give effect to those objectives in a specific area - whether any unfairness attaches to the failure to advise the applicant in advance of its Decision of the fact that it was not accepted that the local area objective had been continued and that accordingly there had been a material change to the 2023 Development Plan - erroneous approach to the interpretation of s. 42, the respondent has failed to have regard to relevant considerations because due regard has not been had to the argument that local objective 4 continues to apply - process flawed by reason of error of law and a failure to have regard to relevant considerations – error on the face of the record – judicial review granted –