The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s decision to reject a community group’s appeal over a major proposed development at Cobh’s Holy Ground, finding that a minor paperwork error did not invalidate the appeal.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice John MacMenamin on 26 October 2006, concerned a second planning application for a marina, 150 apartments, commercial units and a car park at Connolly Street. Cobh Town Council granted permission in December 2004. The Holy Ground and Environs Action Group appealed, but An Bord Pleanála rejected the appeal on 26 January 2005 because it was not accompanied by what the Board considered the required acknowledgement of the group’s planning submission.
The group’s appeal, lodged on 19 January 2005, included a Town Council letter dated 11 January notifying it that another appeal had been lodged. The Board said the appeal should instead have included the Council’s 30 November 2004 acknowledgement of the group’s original objection. The Council’s letters had similar layouts, and their dates appeared in unusually small print. The judge described the dating practice as a trap for the unwary, while saying he was sure it was not intentional.
Justice MacMenamin held that the statutory appeal requirements were mandatory and that “the acknowledgment” ordinarily meant the 30 November letter. But he found the later letter contained the information the Board needed and had been submitted within the required time. The Board had identified no procedural or third-party prejudice beyond the technical defect. In those circumstances, the judge applied the de minimis rule: the error was trivial and the appeal had substantially complied with the requirements.
The planning permission itself was not the decision under review. The court quashed the Board’s refusal to accept the appeal as valid; the judgment did not decide the planning merits of the proposed development.
The developers, who were notice parties, also challenged Margaret Murphy’s standing to bring the judicial review. They argued she was not named among the objectors, while her mother, who lived at the same address, was. The judge declined to revisit standing because it had been considered when leave for judicial review was granted, and no new evidence showed that basis had materially changed.
The judgment records that an earlier planning application for a similar development had been refused on appeal. Group members’ objections to the second proposal included its environmental impact, landslide risk, ecological effects and alleged loss of views of Cobh Harbour.