The High Court has ruled that planning permission for sewage treatment works and related infrastructure at Seabank, Arklow, was granted for 10 years and had not expired. The ruling resolved a preliminary issue in Arklow Town Council’s proceedings against Arklow Holidays Limited and Seabank Property Company Limited; it did not determine the council’s application for an injunction.
The council sought to restrain the companies from interfering with development works and to require removal of an obstruction to access. The dispute arose after contractors began fencing the site in April 2012. On 2 May, a survey team and contractor were stopped from entering a field by Jeremy Hynes of Arklow Holidays, who had parked a JCB across a gated entrance, according to the judgment.
The first defendant, which operates a mobile-home and caravan park on land leased from the second defendant, argued that the permission granted by An Bord Pleanála under reference 23/99 was for five years. It said no longer period had been specified in the Board’s 2005 decision, so the five-year default under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1982 applied. On that basis, it argued that the permission expired in January 2010.
The council argued that the permission incorporated its application and related documents, which sought a 10-year period. It also relied on the Board’s conditions and the history of the planning process. The Board had refused a 2012 request to amend the permission, stating that it considered the grant to be for 10 years and that the interpretation was a question for the courts. The second defendant said it did not object to the development.
President of the High Court Kearns found that the permission was for 10 years. The judgment said condition 1 of the permission incorporated the application alongside the plans and particulars, and that the application specified the duration. The court concluded that the permission had not expired and continued to have effect.
The ruling addressed only the preliminary question of the permission’s duration. The judgment records that the council’s wider injunction claim remained before the court.