Frescati Estates v Walker

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1975
• Date: 01 January 1975
• Docket Number: [1973. No. 2937 P]
• Court: Supreme Court

(S.C.)

Frescati Estates

and

Walker

Status of applicant -Outline application - Whether applicant must have estate in land specified in application -Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, (Permission), Regulations, 1964 (S.I. No. 221), Arts. 2-4 - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 (No. 28), ss.24-26.

The Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, requires permission under the Act to be obtained for any development of land; the Act contains a definition of the word "owner" in relation to land. Section 26, sub-s. 1, of the Act provides for applications being made to planning authorities in accordance with permission regulations for the development of land, and for the granting of permissions subject to conditions. Section 25, sub-s. 1, of the Act states that the appropriate Minister of State shall provide, by permission regulations, for the granting of permission for the development of land, and sub-s. 2 states that such regulations may make provision (a) for applications, expressed to be outline applications, for permissions for development subject to the subsequent approval of the planning authority, and (b) requiring "any applicants" to submit any information "as to any estate or interest in or right over land." The regulations made pursuant to the Act state at article 3 that an application for permission to develop land shall be accompanied by "particulars of the interest held in the land or structure by the applicant", and state at article 5 (4) that outline permission does not operate to authorise the carrying out of any development until a further approval has been granted. The relevant planning authority decided to grant the defendant's application for outline permission to develop the plaintiffs' land, in which the defendant had no estate or interest, and the plaintiffs appealed against that decision. The plaintiffs also issued a summons in the High Court and claimed injunctions restraining the defendant from proceeding with her application and directing her to withdraw that application. The plaintiffs brought a motion for interlocutory injunctions. The planning appeal was lodged after the hearing of the motion in the High Court. Held by Kenny J., in refusing the motion, 1, that the defendant had...