Collins v Galway County Council and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judge | Mr Justice John Edwards |
| Judgment Date | 04 January 2011 |
| Neutral Citation | [2011] IEHC 3 |
| Date | 04 January 2011 |
[2011] IEHC 3
THE HIGH COURT
Between
- and -
- and -
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S42
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50(6)
RSC O. 84
CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION ART 47
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50(8)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50B
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (AMDT) ACT 2010 S33
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50A
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (AMDT) ACT 2010 S32
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50A(2)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50A(3)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50A(4)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50A(10)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE) ACT 2006 S13
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50(8)(B)
COLL v DONEGAL CO COUNCIL UNREP PEART 7.7.2005 2005/11/2331 2005 IEHC 231
SIMONS PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT LAW 2ED 2007
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Judicial review
Leave - Extension of time - Ex parte application- Whether applicant entitled to proceed ex parte with application for extension of time for leave to apply - Whether applicant entitled to proceed ex parte with application for leave to apply - Coll v Donegal County Council [2005] IEHC 231 (Unrep, Peart J, 7/7/2005) considered - Planning and Development Act 2000 (No 30), ss 42, 50 & 50A - Application refused and matter adjourned (2011/1JR - Edwards J - 4/1/2011) [2011] IEHC 3
Collins v Galway County Council
Facts The applicant herein sought the leave of the court to challenge by way of judicial review two decisions of the first named respondent extending the life of a planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanala in respect of proposed building works to be carried out by the notice parties to these proceedings. The applicant was out of time to seek leave having regard to the provisions of s. 50(6) of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2010 and he sought an extension of time within which to bring the application for leave. The applicant's draft notice of motion which the court was disposed to treat as an ex parte docket also sought several ancillary reliefs including an Order pursuant to Article 47 of the Fundamental Charter of European Rights directing that legal aid should be provided by the State for the applicant's legal representation in respect of these proceedings. The applicant urged the court to allow him proceed ex parte both with his claim for an extension of time and also with his claim for substantive relief.
Held by Edwards J. in adjourning the matter to the judicial review list: That Ireland and the Attorney General ought to have been put on notice of the claim by the applicant to compel the State to provide the applicant with legal aid in purported direct reliance upon Article 47 of the Fundamental Charter of European Rights. Furthermore, having regard to the complex issues arising in this case, as well as the likely impact of the proceedings on the respondents and the proposed notice parties, the interests of justice required that both the application for an extension of time, and the application for leave should be conducted on an inter partes basis.
Reporter: L.O'S.
JUDGMENT of Mr Justice John Edwards delivered on the 4th day of January, 2011.
The applicant in these proceedings desires to seek the leave of the High Court to challenge by way of judicial review two decisions of Galway Co Council dated the 5 th of September 2007 and the 1 st of November 2010, respectively, made pursuant to section 42 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), extending the life of a planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanala (ref 00/5248 & PL. 07.125978) on the 23rd of July 2002 for the erection of 48 wind turbines, service roadways, a control house and septic tank at Keelderry, Peterswell, Co Galway in furtherance of a wind energy project promoted, and to be developed, by the notice parties to these proceedings. The original planning permission was a five year permission that was due to expire on the 23 rd of July 2007. The decision of the 5 th of September 2007 purported to extend the life of the planning permission to the 4 th of September 2011. The decision of the 1 st of November 2010 purports to further extend the life of the planning permission to the 3 rd of September 2014. The applicant, who appears in person assisted by a McKenzie friend, a Mr Percy Podger, has put forward a detailed and reasonably cogent affidavit indicating the likely parameters of his intended challenge in the event of him successfully obtaining leave to apply for judicial review. This affidavit flags an intention to seek to challenge the decisions in question on various jurisdictional grounds as well as on domestic and European legal grounds.
The applicant recognizes that he is ostensibly out of time to seek leave to apply for judicial review having regard to the provisions of s. 50(6) of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 - 2010 which provides that such an application must be made within eight weeks of the date of the relevant decision. He has come before the Court ex - parte on foot of what amounts to a draft Notice of Motion and Grounding Affidavit claiming, inter alia, leave to apply for judicial review. However, the only document actually filed is the affidavit which does not exhibit a draft Statement of Grounds. Accordingly his paperwork is irregular and is not in compliance with what is required under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts.
The draft Notice of Motion, which the Court is disposed to treat as an ex parte docket, seeks several ancillary, and in reality preliminary, reliefs, which the applicant regards as essential to enable him to proceed with the matter, in addition to the substantive relief of leave to apply for judicial review.
Among the ancillary / preliminary reliefs sought are (i) an Order pursuant to Art. 47 of the Fundamental Charter of European Rights directing that legal aid should be provided (by the State effectively) for his legal representation; (ii) an Order protecting him from all adverse costs Orders in the course of his intended proceedings, should such protection be necessary, or should the need for such arise, from such proceedings; and (iii) such extension, or extensions, of time as may be required (presumably pursuant to s. 50(8) of the Planning and Development Acts 2000 - 2010).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merriman v Fingal County Council
...to the decisions of the High Court in Lackagh Quarries Ltd v. Galway City Council [2010] IEHC 479 and Collins v. Galway County Council [2011] IEHC 3. 15 The court notes that the Case 2 Applicant has also sought to rely on Art. 11 of the consolidated EIA Directive to assert its standing to......
-
Merriman v Fingal County Council
...Quarries Ltd v. Galway City Council [2010] IEHC 479, Coll v. Donegal County Council [2005] IEHC 231 and Collins v. Galway County Council [2011] IEHC 3. As to Dellway Investments v. NAMA [2011] 4 IR 1, as the court noted at some length in its judgment there are very significant differences, ......
-
Barford Holdings Ltd v Fingal County Council
...been entirely clear that PADA makes no provision for third party participation in this regard. (See also Collins v. Galway County Council [2011] IEHC 3).” 88 . I am satisfied that in Merriman, as apparent from the above extract, the Court was dealing with the rights of third parties. The ap......