The High Court refused an application for leave to challenge Cork County Council’s grant of planning permission for three dwellings and wastewater treatment units at Colla, Schull. Mr Justice Hedigan found that the applicant had not shown the substantial interest required for leave under the planning legislation. He added that, even if that threshold had been met, the grounds were too weak to justify the orders sought.
The permission was granted on 4 July 2006 to Kieran Coughlan and Claire Riordan for development on their site. The applicant owned an adjoining holiday home and lived in Northern Ireland. He sought to quash the permission and obtain related declarations, arguing that the council had failed to acknowledge his objection promptly and that he had been deprived of a chance to pay the €20 fee in time.
The applicant and his wife faxed their submission to the council on 13 April 2006 and posted a hard copy that arrived on 18 April. The submission adopted objections made by Pat and Susan Lucey and added three further points. It did not include the required fee. On 25 April, the council returned it as invalid and said it could be reconsidered if resubmitted with the fee within five weeks of 16 March. That period had already expired. The applicant resubmitted the objection with the fee on 4 May, but the council declined to accept it as late. The applicant did not challenge the original invalidity decision.
The council considered the Luceys’ submission valid. They later told the council they no longer objected to the amended proposal, and the permission decision recorded that their submission had been taken into account. The applicant’s separate appeal to An Bord Pleanála was declared invalid because it lacked an acknowledgment of a valid planning submission; the four-week appeal period had also expired.
The judge held that the applicant’s loss of an appeal opportunity did not itself create a substantial interest in the planning permission. His nearby holiday home was the main personal interest advanced, but the court found that the proposed development was some distance from it and that the applicant had not proved the required substantial interest.
The court also rejected the argument that the council had acted too slowly. It found that the 25 April letter, sent one week after the hard copy arrived, was sent within a reasonable time and that the applicant’s failure to include the fee was his responsibility, given his previous participation in planning matters at the site. The court held that a submission must be accompanied by the required fee to be valid. It refused the order and declarations sought. The State respondents’ case had been discontinued during the hearing without an order as to costs.