O'Donoghue v an Bord Pleanála

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1991
• Date: 01 January 1991
• Court: Supreme Court

(H.C.)

O'Donoghue

and

An Bord Pleanála

Whether decision ultra vires - Refusal of permission by planning authority - Appeal to An Bord Pleanála allowed - Whether advertisement of application for permission adequate - Whether decision of An Bord Pleanála ultra vires -Whether decision unreasonable - Whether failure to keep appropriate records sufficient to render decision a nullity.

On 27 October, 1989, the planning authority, Dublin County Council, refused an application by the second-named respondent for permission to construct a bungalow on lands sometimes described as 'Site One at Old Rectory Park, Taney Road, Dundrum' on the grounds that the proposed development was considered to be an overdevelopment of the site and did not comply with site development standards as detailed in the county development plan. The second-named respondent appealed this decision to the first-named respondent An Bord Pleanála (the board). In a report to the first-named respondent dated 16 February, 1990, a senior inspector with the board recommended the refusal of the permission sought on the grounds, inter alia, that the proposed development would constitute an overdevelopment of the site. By letter dated 12 April, 1990, the applicant made submissions in writing to the board urging rejection of the second-named respondent's appeal. Notwithstanding the recommendation of the senior inspector and the objections of the applicant, by order dated 1 August, 1990, the board granted the permission sought subject to a number of conditions, being of the view that the proposed construction of the bungalow would not constitute overdevelopment of the site or be injurious to properties in the vicinity and that it would accord with the proper planning and development of the area. The applicant sought an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the board dated 1 August, 1990, on the grounds, firstly, that there were material defects in the public advertisement of the application for permission and secondly that the decision of the first-named respondent was ultra vires on the basis that it was an unreasonable exercise of the decision making power of the board and that the board had failed to keep a...