The High Court has lifted a stay that had paused an appeal to An Bord Pleanála (ABP) over planning permission for a proposed development at Milleencoola, Bantry, Co. Cork. The decision allows the appeal to proceed; it does not decide the appeal or the underlying judicial review challenge.
Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan ruled on 18 May 2021 that Peter Sweetman had not established that the stay should remain in place. The stay had been granted when he received leave to bring judicial review proceedings against Cork County Council’s 7 March 2019 decision to grant planning permission to notice party Cliona O’Hanlon, subject to conditions.
Sweetman’s judicial review grounds alleged, among other matters, that the Council had not properly considered environmental impact and habitats issues, had mishandled further information and public consultation, and had failed to consider his submissions. He argued that ABP could not adequately address those issues and that lifting the stay risked making the judicial review proceedings moot. These were claims and submissions before the court, not findings made in this judgment.
The judge found that the appeal to ABP was capable of addressing all the issues raised. She said the possibility that the judicial review might become moot did not cause appreciable prejudice if ABP could deal with those issues. The judge also noted that Sweetman’s submissions to the Council were general and nonspecific, and that only his first submission had been made within time. She acknowledged that the grant of leave supported the conclusion that his case was reasonable, arguable and weighty.
The Council and the notice party opposed continuing the stay. Evidence before the court included claims that the proceedings were delaying the development and jeopardising its sale. An affidavit on behalf of the purchasing company described the development as entirely social housing. The judge took account of the public interest in the orderly planning process and in providing social housing, alongside the principle that measures are presumed valid pending challenge.
The court concluded that the greatest risk of injustice lay in continuing the stay. It ordered that the stay granted on 29 April 2019 be discharged in respect of progressing the appeal to ABP. The court did not determine whether the planning permission was lawful or resolve the judicial review grounds.