The High Court has dismissed Christian Morris’s challenge to planning permission for a mixed-use development on Howth Road and refused his application for an order requiring a site clean-up and demolition of buildings.
In a judgment delivered on 1 June 2017, Mr Justice Max Barrett found that Mr Morris had not put substantive grounds before the court within the statutory eight-week period and had neither sought nor obtained an extension of time for the grounds ultimately pursued. The court therefore concluded that the judicial review was out of time.
An Bord Pleanála granted permission on 20 June 2016 for 200 homes, commercial units, a crèche and a community centre, with associated works and demolition of existing on-site structures. Mr Morris challenged that decision. The judgment records that he filed a statement of grounds and affidavit in August 2016, but the statement was effectively blank. Leave to seek judicial review was granted on 7 November, and the grounds relied on were filed later that month.
Although the timing issue was sufficient to dispose of the challenge, the judge also considered the objections raised. He found no legal deficiency in Glenkerrin Homes applying for permission over land owned by Fingal County Council and Dublin City Council, because the required written consents had been provided. He also held that planning permission does not transfer ownership or an interest in land, and that An Bord Pleanála was not responsible for deciding questions of legal title.
The judge found no basis to overturn the Board’s decision not to hold an oral hearing. The Board had considered a memorandum and the submissions on file before deciding against a hearing in April 2016, and Mr Morris had not shown grounds warranting a different conclusion.
In the separate proceedings, Mr Morris sought mandatory injunctive relief against Glenkerrin Homes and its receivers, including an interlocutory order that would have required clean-up work and demolition. The court held he lacked a legal interest giving him standing to seek that relief. It found no evidence that the site presented an actual or impending nuisance to his property or other lands, roads or pavements. The judge also said the proposed order would require works that would ordinarily need planning permission and would bypass the planning scheme.
The court refused the interlocutory application, finding that Mr Morris had not shown the strong case required for mandatory interim relief. The judgment states that both the judicial review application and the application for interlocutory injunctive relief failed; it does not determine the final outcome of the separate plenary action.