The High Court refused Deerland Construction Limited leave to seek judicial review of Westmeath County Council’s decision allowing Habbingley Limited to change the use of three retail units in Mullingar from bulky goods to general retail. The court dismissed the application after finding Deerland lacked standing under the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Peter Kelly on 12 December 2006, dealt with a preliminary issue. The court had admitted the case to the Commercial List and directed that Deerland’s standing be decided first. The ruling did not determine whether the council’s planning permission was valid.
Deerland, which the judgment identifies as the owner of Harbour Place Shopping Centre in Mullingar, accepted that it had made no submissions or observations to the council about Habbingley’s proposal. Under section 50(4), the court said, leave to bring a planning judicial review could not be granted unless Deerland showed good and sufficient reasons for not making submissions or objections.
The court found that Deerland had offered no explanation for its failure to participate in the planning process. Its affidavit said the company had been reasonably entitled to assume the council would refuse permission because the proposal would materially contravene the development plan, or would invoke the material contravention procedure if it intended to grant permission.
Justice Kelly rejected that as a sufficient reason. He said accepting the argument would undermine the statutory scheme and its requirements for planning challenges. The judgment also noted that Deerland had objected to an earlier change-of-use application concerning one of the units, arguing that it would materially contravene the development plan. The council rejected that submission and granted permission in that earlier matter.
The court concluded that Deerland had not met the statutory threshold for standing and was required to refuse leave. It refused leave to apply for judicial review and dismissed the application. The court did not proceed to assess the substantive grounds challenging the 29 June 2006 permission.