The High Court has refused John and Joan Walsh’s application to quash An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a replacement entrance at Mount Congreve, Kilternan, County Waterford. The court also refused their requested declarations, holding that their challenge to the application’s landowner consent could not be brought on their case and that the substantive grounds did not warrant relief.
The planning application was submitted to Waterford City and County Council in September 2019. It named “Ray Sinnott on behalf of Congreve Trust” as applicant and sought to replace an agricultural entrance with a domestic entrance to provide access to Mr Sinnott’s residence on the estate. The site was within the curtilage of a protected structure.
The Walshes objected and later appealed the Council’s permission to An Bord Pleanála. They argued, among other things, that Mr Sinnott lacked authority and the required owner’s consent under Article 22(2)(g) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. The Board granted permission in March 2020, with revised conditions. The Walshes then sought judicial review, asking the High Court to quash that decision or declare it unlawful.
The court said the application form plainly identified Mr Sinnott as applying on behalf of the trust, rather than in his own right. It noted that the inspector’s report referred to him simply as “the applicant” in places, but said any such error did not invalidate the Board’s decision. The inspector’s report also recorded that the house was owned by the trust and occupied by Mr Sinnott.
The judge accepted that the Board must consider a validity issue raised on appeal, while explaining that its role in investigating title is limited. In this case, the inspector could perhaps have addressed the Walshes’ specific validity argument more directly. But the court said that omission made no difference in light of the weakness of the claim that the form showed Mr Sinnott applying personally. The court did not conclusively decide who the applicant was; it said that was for the Board to determine if the decision were quashed and the matter remitted.
The court also held that the Walshes could not rely on Article 22(2)(g) to enforce the rights of the landowner. Although they had standing to challenge the Board’s decision generally, the judge said the rule against jus tertii prevented them from policing a protection intended for landowners when they were not relying on their own landowner rights. The judgment treated the Walshes’ separate concerns about their privacy, security and property value as private interests, but said those did not give them a right to advance the landowner-consent claim.
Finally, the judge said the permission’s planning merits had not been challenged and could be granted again if the decision were quashed, making that remedy potentially futile. The court refused all relief sought. It did not decide costs; it said it would hear the parties on that issue.