McGovern v Dublin Corporation
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Court | High Court |
Judgment Date | 01 January 1999 |
Date | 01 January 1999 |
- Default permission - Development plan - Material contravention -Whether proposed development material contravention - Whether development of type normally permissible under terms of development plan - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 (No. 28), s. 26 (4).
-
S. 26(4) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, provides that where a planning authority fails to give notice of its decision on a planning application within the appropriate period (generally two months from the date of the application), a planning permission is deemed to have been given in default. A default planning permission will not arise, however, where the proposed development would represent a material contravention of the development plan. The special procedure prescribed under s. 26(3) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, must be followed before a planning authority may grant permission in contravention of its plan. The applicant had applied for planning permission for a guest-house comprising 21 bedrooms. There was a dispute as to whether the applicant had properly replied to a request for further information so as to set time running against the respondent local authority. A preliminary issue arose, however, as to whether default permission could ever issue in respect of the proposed development. Under the relevant development plan, guest-houses with no more than 19 bedrooms, although designated as 'open for consideration', did not come within the list of 'normally permissible' development. The applicant argued that the proposed development did not, however, constitute a material contravention of the plan and sought an order of mandamus directing the local authority to grant planning permission. Held by Barr J. in refusing the relief sought: (1) The statutory right to a default permission...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Paul Maye v Sligo Borough Council
...CALOR TEORANTA v SLIGO CO COUNCIL 1991 2 IR 267 WALSH v KILDARE CO COUNCIL 2001 1 IR 483 2000 18 6728 MCGOVERN v DUBLIN CORPORATION 1999 2 ILRM 314 TENNYSON v DUN LAOGHAIRE CORPORATION 1991 2 IR 527 ROUGHAN v CLARE CO COUNCIL UNREP BARRON 18.12.1996 1997/6/2213 ILLIUM PROPERTIES LTD v D......
-
Maguire v Bray Town Council
...DISTRICT COUNCIL 1982 ILRM 29 1982/5/904 PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD, STATE v DUBLIN CO COUNCIL 1984 IR 407 MCGOVERN v DUBLIN CORP 1999 2 ILRM 314 P & F SHARPE LTD & GROVE DEVELOPMENTS LTD v DUBLIN CITY & COUNTY MANAGER & DUBLIN CO COUNCIL 1989 IR 701 1989 ILRM 565 1988/10/2982 CALOR T......
-
Abbeydrive Developments Ltd v Kildare County Council
...& DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S34 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S34(8) MCOVERN v LORD MAYOR ALDERMEN & BURGESSES OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN 1999 2 ILRM 314 LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S26 MONAGHAN U.D.C v ALF-A- BET PROMOTIONS LTD 1980 ILRM 64 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S37 PL......
-
Abbeydrive Developments Ltd v Kildare County Council
...LTD 1980 ILRM 64 MCNAMARA v AN BORD PLEANALA 1996 2 ILRM 339 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S34(6)(a) MCGOVERN v DUBLIN CORPORATION 1999 2 ILRM 314 DUBLIN CORPORATION DUBLIN CITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN 1991 CALOR TEORANTA v SLIGO CO COUNCIL 1991 2 IR 267 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S34(8)(a)......