Planning board was entitled to grant revised planning permission in respect of retail development

Judicial review – planning – substantive hearing – company for the promotion of regional shopping centres and company that owned a shopping centre challenging the decision of the planning board to award planning permission to a developer - development of a large mixed retail and commercial use development - whether the board has jurisdiction to grant a revision, or to make an amendment, to an extant planning permission other than in the very limited circumstances identified in statute – history of planning applications and permissions – further application modify and complete the works as described in existing permissions – inspector’s report - on appeal the board decided to grant permission subject to a number of conditions – company argued that the board’s decision was incorrect in principle - board treated the application/appeal as a proposed revision to extant planning permissions with a view to completing already commenced works – relevant legislation only allows for the possibility of amending existing planning permissions in the very limited circumstances - no other power to amend – argued that the board failed to have regard to the current version of the Statutory Development Plan – argued that the board failed to have regard to the policies and objectives for time being of the Limerick County Development Plan and the retail strategy of the Development Plan as required – argued that the board erred in law by failing to require the developer to carry out a Retail Impact Statement prior to the planning authority reaching its decision – relied on an out of date report from a period when the economic climate in the State was considerably different - argued that the board erred in failing to require the developer to submit the required environmental studies and assessments – argued that the board acted contrary to European law in failing to carry out any proper screening determination and failing to provide a reasoned screening determination – argued that as the planning authority had refused planning permission on the basis, inter alia, that a proposed development would involve a material contravention of the development, plan the board’s powers to grant planning permission were confined as provided in statute - enhanced duty to give reasons for its decision - nothing in the Act which precludes a power to amend planning permission - widespread practice of amending planning permissions – if the Oireachtas intended to radically and drastically limit a widespread existing power to grant planning permissions which amended existing extant planning permissions - if this had been the intention of the Oireachtas, it would not have made such intention explicit and clear - regulations recognise that there may be applications to amend existing planning permissions - argued that the developer’s application for planning permission ought to have been treated as a stand alone planning permission because it sought a planning permission of five years in duration – argued that it was not permissible to grant a planning permission that was limited to the life of the extant planning permissions which were sought to be amended - common practice of amending existing planning permission involves limiting the duration of the subsequent amending grants of planning permission to the life of the original “parent” planning permission – argued that the implication of a power to amend existing planning permissions where the amending planning permission must be of five years duration, would have the effect of extending the duration of planning permissions beyond the natural cycle of development plans - undermines the primacy of the development plan – argument predicated upon the contention that it is not permissible to so extend the lifetime of a grant of planning permission that it extends not only into the next development plan cycle but also into the one following - precisely what the Oireachtas has permitted in relation to the power to extend the duration of planning permissions – power to extend a permission - clear that it is permissible to extend a planning permission across three cycles of development plans - how an application to amend an existing planning permission should be assessed – whether the entire development should be assessed as opposed simply to the variations on the merits in the light of the current development plan, ministerial guidelines and other current planning policies and objectives - Oireachtas has clearly formed the view that the developer may be entitled to an extension of the period of that planning permission notwithstanding the fact that the development in question may no longer be compatible with new ministerial guidelines or the most up-to-date planning policies and objectives - Oireachtas has decided that a developer who has carried out substantial works should be giving a reasonable opportunity to complete the development within a reasonable time - no reason in principle why an extended planning permission may not be amended in the same manner as a planning permission may be amended within the normal life time of the permission - application is to be assessed in the normal way but it is the proposed amendments or revisions only that are to be assessed – whether the challenge to the planning permission is out of time - limitation period of eight weeks - decision of the planning authority not a provisional decision – differences in fees - any issue in relation to the validity of an application for planning permission must be considered by the board on any appeal to it - company not out of time for raising issues in relation to the validity of the application for planning permission in these proceedings - board was entitled to exercise its own expertise and determine for itself whether or not the application materially contravened the development plan - material contravention - planning policies and guidelines - once it is accepted that the existence and contents of the parent permissions is a relevant consideration for the board, the case in relation to material contravention of the development plans and failure to comply with ministerial guidelines effectively falls away - board “had regard” to the policies and guidelines when it assessed the revisions, modifications and amendments to the development in respect of which permission was sought – environmental assessment not mandatory - board carried out a proper screening as required - the inspector did assess whether or not new environmental studies were required - board accepted the inspector’s report, and therefore may be deemed to have accepted his assessment and reasoning in relation to whether or not an assessment was required.