Ryan v Meath County Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice Max Barrett
• Judgment Date: 12 May 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] IEHC 297
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: 2014 No. 490JR
• Date: 12 May 2017

[2017] IEHC 297

THE HIGH COURT

Barrett J.

2014 No. 490JR

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 50 OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACTS 2000–2014

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL RYAN

APPLICANT

AND

MEATH COUNTY COUNCIL

RESPONDENTS

AND

JOSEPH CONNOLLY

NOTICE PARTY

Planning & Development – S. 50 of the Planning and Development Acts 2000-2014 – Leave to Appeal – Point of law of exceptional public importance

Facts: The applicant sought leave of the Court for filing an appeal before the Court of Appeal against the impugned judgment. The applicant had formulated certain points of law of exceptional public importance in relation to s. 20(3)(q) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 for making material alterations in the proposed development.

Mr. Justice Max Barrett refused to grant leave to the applicant. The Court held that none of the questions formulated by the applicant contained point of law of exceptional public importance that would warrant the grant of leave.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered on 12 ^th May, 2017.

1 This is an application made under s.50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to appeal the court's judgment of last December in Ryan v. Meath County Council [2016] IEHC 754. The court does not propose to repeat the relevant factual background; it is as stated in its previous judgment. Under s.50A(7) of the Act of 2000, no appeal may be brought against the court's decision, at least under that Act, unless the court certifies that its decision involves a point of law of exceptional public importance and that it is desirable in the public interest that an appeal be brought.

2 In determining whether or not to grant the certificate now sought, it is nowadays usual to apply the principles identified by MacMenamin J. in Glancré Teoranta v. Mayo County Council [2006] IEHC 250. The court does not consider it necessary to recite those well-known principles in this judgment. Suffice it to note that the Glancré principles, rightly referred to by counsel for Mr Ryan as now ‘ well settled’ law, are the principles by reference to which the court has determined the within application, albeit that it has also had regard to various other decisions to which helpful reference was made, including Arklow Holidays Ltd v. An Bord Pleanála [2008] IEHC 2, Harding v. Cork County Council [2006] IEHC 450, Aherne v. An Bord Pleanála [2016] IEHC 536 and Connolly v. An Bord Pleanála [2016] IEHC 624.

3 The applicant has identified up to three...