Ryan v Clare County Council
Jurisdiction | Ireland |
Judge | Mr. Justice Hedigan, |
Judgment Date | 11 March 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] IEHC 115 |
Court | High Court |
Docket Number | RECORD NO.1474JR/2007 |
Date | 11 March 2009 |
[2009] IEHC 115
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN:
AND
AND
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S34(8)(F)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S34(8)(A)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S34(11)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S50A
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT (STRATEGIC INFRASTRUCTURE) ACT 2006 S13
RSC O.84 r21
ABENGLEN PROPERTIES, STATE v DUBLIN CORP 1984 IR 3811982 ILRM 590 1982/1/1
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S34(6)
DUBLIN CO COUNCIL v MARREN 1985 ILRM 593 1985/5/1137
CALOR TEO v SLIGO CO COUNCIL 1991 2 IR 267 1991/11/2646
PINE VALLEY DEVELOPMENTS LTD, STATE v DUBLIN CO COUNCIL 1984 IR 407
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S18(3)
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S15
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000 S34
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS FIRST PROTOCOL ART 1
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 8
LOUGH v FIRST SECRETARY OF STATE 2004 EWCA CIV 9052004 1 WLR 2557 2005 1 P & CR 5
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 6.1
EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS & FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS ART 3
DEKRA EIREANN TEO v MIN FOR ENVIRONMENT 2003 2 IR 270
O'BRIEN v MORIARTY 2006 2 IR 2212005 2 ILRM 321 2005/45/9458 2005 IESC 32
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REGS 2001 SI 600/2001 REG 31
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REGS 2006 SI 685/2006 REG 8
ROUGHAN v CLARE CO COUNCIL UNREP BARRON 18.12.1996 1997/6/2213
MAYE v SLIGO BOROUGH COUNCIL 2007 4 IR 678 2007/39/8174 2007 IEHC 146
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Planning permission
Development plan - Refusal to notify applicants of decision - Judicial review - Time limits - Delay - Whether application made out of time - Discretionary nature of remedy - Planning and Development Act 2000 (No 30), ss 18(3), 34(8)(f) and 50 - Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (SI 600/2001), art 31 - Dekra Éireann v Minister for Environment [2003] 2 IR 270 and O'Brien v Moriarty [2006] 2 IR 221 considered - Relief refused (2007/1474JR - Hedigan J - 11/3/2009) [2009] IEHC 115
Ryan v Clare County Council
Facts: The applicant builders sought a declaration that the respondent was deemed pursuant to s. 34(8)(f) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to have made a decision to grant planning permission for a particular development in Co. Clare. Planning officers had recommended a refusal of the application and a draft order was prepared but due to oversight was not signed by the relevant person. The respondent submitted that the applicants were disentitled to relief by virtue of their delay in litigating the issue. The issue arose as to whether the development would contravene the Local Area Plan or whether it contravened the County Development Plan.
Held by Hedigan J. that the Court was satisfied that the default planning permission should not have issued. The reliefs sought would be refused. The Court could not act itself as a planning authority unless it was incontrovertibly shown that a default planning permission would be fully in accordance with the Local Area Plan. There was good reason to suspect that the proposal would contravene the policies set down in the plan.
Reporter: E.F.
The Applicants are brothers and building developers, based in Limerick City.
The respondent is a local authority with responsibility for the administrative area of County Clare. Its functions include the management of building developments in the county, in particular by means of the grant or refusal of planning permission.
The notice parties are individuals who reside immediately adjacent to the proposed development which forms the subject matter of this application. Two of the notice parties are recently deceased and were represented at the hearing of the matter by their executors.
The applicants seek a declaration that the respondent is deemed, pursuant to section 34(8)(f) of the Planning and Development Act2000 ('the 2000 Act') to have made a decision to grant planning permission to the applicants in respect of a development proposal made on the 2nd of May 2007 relating to certain works at a property on Liscannor Road, Lahinch in the County of Clare. Section 34(8)(a) of the 2000 Act prescribes a time limit of 8 weeks within which an initial decision on any planning application must be made, failing which section 34(8)(f) comes into operation and default planning permission may arise.
The applicants further seek an order ofmandamus directing the respondents to grant planning permission to the applicants in respect of the proposed development, pursuant to section 38(11) of the 2000 Act.
On the 1st of May 2007, the applicants applied in writing to the respondent for planning permission in respect of proposed development works at Dough, Liscannor Road, Lahinch in the County of Clare. This application was received by the respondent on the 2nd of May 2007. The proposal entailed the demolition of an existing single-storey house on the site and the construction of two new two-storey houses. There were also associated site development works, such as the creation of car parking spaces.
The applicants' planning consultant, Mr. Gary Rowan, wrote to the respondent's planning department on the 27th of June 2007, seeking clarification of the position. Mr. Rowan was initially advised, in error, that the respondent had decided to refuse the application for planning permission. This error was corrected in a matter of days and it is clear that by the 3rd of July 2007 at the latest, the applicants were aware that no formal decision had been made within the statutory period. Mr. Rowan also contacted the respondent's legal representatives on the 4th of July 2007, seeking clarification of the position.
As it transpires, the relevant planning officers and other technical experts had in fact recommended the refusal of the application and a draft order was prepared to this effect. However, due to an oversight, this draft order was not signed by the relevant person to whom the responsibility for making appropriate managerial orders was delegated. This failure to sign the draft order within the relevant time period had occurred despite there being a specific arrangement that the order was to be formally endorsed on the 27th of June 2007, which perhaps explains to some extent the conflicting pieces of information which were received by Mr. Rowan.
In the ensuing weeks, the parties exchanged correspondence in which the applicants sought to establish that default planning permission would in fact issue. The respondent refused to make any commitment in this regard and on the 25th of September 2007, the applicants were informed of the respondent's refusal to allow them to avail of the default permission mechanism.
Having failed to obtain confirmation of default permission, the applicants served a notice of motion seeking judicial review on the respondent on the 9th of November 2007. Leave to apply by way of judicial review was granted by Peart J. on the 19th of November 2007.
The respondent submits, by way of preliminary objection, that the applicants are disentitled to relief by virtue of their delay in bringing this application before the Court. In this regard, they suggest that Section 50 of the 2000 Act applies. It provides as follows:
"(1) Where a question of law arises on any matter with which the Board is concerned, the Board may refer the question to the High Court for decision.
(2) A person shall not question the validity of any decision made or other act done by:-
(a) a planning authority, a local authority or the Board in the performance or purported performance of a function under this Act,
(b) the Board in the performance or purported performance of a function transferred under Part XIV, or
(c) a local authority in the performance or purported performance of a function conferred by an enactment specified in section 214 relating to the compulsory acquisition of land, otherwise than by way of an application for judicial review under Order 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts (S.I. No. 15 of 1986) (the "Order").
(3) Subsection (2)(a) does not apply to an approval or consent referred to in Chapter I or II of Part VI.
(4) A planning authority, a local authority or the Board may, at any time after the bringing of an application for leave to apply for judicial review of any decision or other act to which subsection (2) applies and which relates to a matter for the time being before the authority or the Board, as the case may be, apply to the High Court to stay the proceedings pending the making of a decision by the authority or the Board in relation to the matter concerned.
(5) On the making of such an application, the High Court may, where it considers that the matter before the authority or the Board is within the jurisdiction of the authority or the Board, make an order staying the proceedings concerned on such terms as it thinks fit.
(6) Subject to subsection (8), an application for leave to apply for judicial review under the Order in respect of a decision or other act to which subsection (2)(a) applies shall be made within the period of 8 weeks beginning on the date of the decision or, as the case may be, the date of the doing of the act by the planning authority, the local authority or the Board, as appropriate.
(7) Subject to subsection (8), an application for leave to apply for judicial review under the Order in respect of a decision or other act to which subsection (2)(b) or (c) applies shall be made within the period of 8 weeks beginning on the date...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Byrnes v Cublin City Council
...permission has been granted in material contravention. This is apparent from the decision of Hedigan J. in Ryan v. Clare County Council [2009] IEHC 115 where he said the following: ‘…objections are only relevant when considering the materiality of a contravention as opposed to assessing whe......
-
Four Districts Woodland Habitat Group and Others v an Bord Pleanála and Others
...a proposed interpretative centre was “obtrusive” was held to be a matter of planning judgement. (iii) Ryan v. Clare County Council [2009] IEHC 115, [2009] 3 JIC 1102, ( (2009) 16 I.P.E.L.J. 125 Unreported, High Court, 11th March, 2009) (Hedigan J.): a case where, as regards the development ......
-
Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group v an Bord Pleanála, The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Ireland and the Attorney General
...permission has been granted in material contravention. This is apparent from the decision of Hedigan J. in Ryan v. Clare County Council [2009] IEHC 115 where he said the following: “… objections are only relevant when considering the materiality of a contravention as opposed to assessing wh......
-
Grafton Group Plc v an Bord Pleanála
...City Council [2017] IEHC 19 (para. 23) and by Simons J. in Redmond (para. 74–76). 33 As Hedigan J. held in Ryan v. Clare County Council [2009] IEHC 115 “ … objections are only relevant when considering the materiality of a contravention as opposed to assessing whether one exists.” (para. 34......