The High Court has struck out proceedings brought by consultant civil engineer John V. Lennon over a 1998 planning application for a bridge development across the River Lee in Cork, ruling that he lacked standing and had brought the case too late.
Mr Justice Smyth delivered the judgment on 19 December 2006. Lennon sought a declaration that Maria Lennon had made a valid application for outline planning permission on 10 August 1998. The proposal was for 48 apartments and a commercial arcade on a new bridge between Anderson’s Quay and St Patrick’s Quay.
The council initially told Maria Lennon the application was incomplete because it considered the newspaper notice out of time. She published a second notice, after which the application was registered. Cork City Council refused permission on 29 October 1998. Maria Lennon appealed, then withdrew the appeal in March 1999, asserting that permission had arisen by default.
The judgment records that John V. Lennon later relied on a 2000 High Court ruling about how to calculate the two-week notice period. He argued that the ruling meant the original application was valid. The court said the earlier order addressed the interpretation of the notice period; it did not declare that Maria Lennon’s application was valid.
The judge found that Lennon was not the planning applicant and had no legal interest in the land. His contingent professional fees did not give him the property interest required for standing. The judge also accepted the council’s submission that Maria Lennon had waived any claim to relief by proceeding with the planning process after the council required a second notice.
The court treated the substance of the case as a challenge to the council’s handling of the application, subject to planning-law time limits. The proceedings began in July 2005, almost seven years after the council’s October 1998 decision. Lennon had not explained or excused the delay, the judge said, and struck out the proceedings on that ground as well.
The judgment further concluded that no default permission could arise. The council’s Article 17(2) notice had not been quashed, and the proposed development was found to materially contravene the Cork City Development Plan. The court said a declaration would serve no useful purpose. It refused the relief sought and ordered the proceedings struck out.