Peter Sweetman v an Bord Pleanála and Others

Tweet

 

FREE EXCERPT

[2015] IEHC 285

THE HIGH COURT

[2 JR/2015]

Sweetman v Bord Pleanala & Ors

BETWEEN

PETER SWEETMAN

PLAINTIFF

AND

AN BORD PLEANÁLA, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND THOMAS HEUSTON

DEFENDANTS

Planning Authority – Substitute consent – Delay pursuant to s. 52 of The Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended) – Collateral challenge.

2015/2JR - Hedigan - High - 15/5/2015 - 2015 IEHC 285

Facts: The defendant sought judicial review to strike out the proceedings followed by the impugned order of the Donegal County Council directing the notice party to apply for 'substituted consent' pursuant to s.261a and Part 10a of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended. The applicant argued that the decision to grant the substituted consent would be unlawful. The applicant contended that the challenge would be delayed pursuant to s. 52 of The Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended).

Mr. Justice Hedigan held that the motion for judicial review to strike out the proceedings followed by the impugned order of the Donegal County Council would be refused. The Court held that the Donegal County Council's decision directing the notice party to apply for 'substituted consent' pursuant to s.261a and Part 10a of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended would be within the criteria and therefore, it would not be unlawful. The Court observed that it would not be a collateral attack on the decision of the Donegal County Council. The Court observed that in that circumstance the issue of delay would not arise.

1 DECISION of Mr. Justice Hedigan delivered the 15th of May 2015

2 1. This is an application by the second and third respondents state to strike out the judicial proceedings insofar as they seek to challenge certain provisions of the planning legislation. The state contends that the challenge to the planning legislation is inadmissible by reason of delay. The application is based upon the proposition that the applicant is in reality mounting a collateral challenge to the decision or determination of Donegal County Council made on the 29 ^th June 2012 in which it directed the notice party herein to apply for "substitute consent" pursuant to s.261a and Part 10a of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended. If it is such a collateral challenge then, argue the state, it is well out of time pursuant to s. 52 of the same Act.

3 2. The applicant argues that not only has he no interest in challenging this decision of...