Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, in planning and development judicial review proceedings, refuses developer's application to remit his planning application for further review by planning board in light of the Court's prior order invalidating the board's determination to grant planning permission for a proposed development (in place of setting aside the planning permission simpliciter), on the grounds that: the planning application was flawed from the outset of the entire process as it failed to recognise the proposed development as representing a material contravention of a development plan; and, as such, these deficiencies are incapable of being remedied by remittal. The Court therefore grants an order setting aside the planning board's decision to grant permission for the proposed development and refuses remittal to the planning board for further consideration.
Planning and development judicial review proceedings - principal judgment determining grant of planning permission to be invalid - whether Court should remit underlying planning application to planning board for reconsideration or whether the planning permission decision should be set aside simpliciter - public participation rights in planning process - whether absence of public notice and a statement of the justification for seeking a material contravention is fatal to remittal - procedural history - question of remittal dealt with by the Court 'on the papers' - High Court's discretion to remit - Order 84, rule 27(4) RSC - planning board to be treated as a disinterested party with no stake in commercial venture - planning board's opposition to remittal based upon a finding of frustration of public participation process - planning and development housing and residential tenancies legislative provisions - importance of public participation in particular application for planning permission - identification of point in time at which earlier decision-making process went awry - whether timing of initial error on part of board was the time of preparation of inspector's report - planning application fatally flawed from outset - application failed to recognise proposed development represented a material contravention of development plan - whether application non-compliant and therefore board would be bound to dismiss application as invalid if remitted - legislative test triggering right of public participation is objective and unconnected with subjective views of applicant developer - unsuitable case for remittal - planning application flawed from outset as it failed to recognise proposed development represented a material contravention of development plan resulting in non-compliance with procedures prescribed for such applications - Court would have additionally exercised its discretion to refuse to remit on two bases - planning board's objections to remittal - prejudice to developer in refusal to remit in strategic housing development is less profound that in case of conventional planning application
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only e-mail alert service for all Irish judgments over the past 13 years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now