The High Court has directed the parties in a planning judicial review case to make further written submissions on whether EU law affects the deadline for challenging a planning decision when notice is delayed or not given within a statutory period.
In a judgment delivered on 8 November 2024, Mr Justice Humphreys said the court was not deciding the substantive challenge or whether to refer any question to the Court of Justice of the European Union. The case will return for further mention on 2 December 2024.
The applicants, Alex and Shahla Thompson, challenge An Bord Pleanála’s 28 June 2023 decision to grant permission for a dwelling at Howth Road, Sutton, Dublin 13. The judgment says the board’s decision appeared online on 5 July, later than the three-day period discussed by the court. The applicants received notice on 4 July. The statutory eight-week period to seek judicial review ran from the date of the decision and expired on 22 August 2023. Their application was opened the following day.
In an earlier judgment, the court held that the applicants were one day late and did not meet the statutory conditions for an extension. The judge said that finding remained relevant, but did not by itself remove their standing or make their arguments against the State moot. Their present argument is that EU law may require a different result where notification rules allow discretion over timing, or authorities fail to meet a specified notification deadline.
The State denies that the relevant domestic provisions are invalid and argues that existing appellate decisions support the eight-week rule. The judge said those decisions did not resolve the specific argument now advanced. He also said the statutory wording could not be reinterpreted to make time run from notification, because that would conflict with its clear meaning.
The court set out three questions for submissions: whether EU law requires notification deadlines, or time running from notification, where the challenge period runs from the decision; whether domestic law must allow a limited extension to compensate for late notice; and whether EU law prevents excluding an extension when an applicant could still have brought proceedings within the original period.
The applicants must file a written summary within one week and the State within two further weeks, addressing each question, whether it is clear under EU law, and any fuller argument. The court will then decide whether to determine the issues itself or refer any to the EU court. Costs were reserved. The planning permission itself was not quashed by this judgment.