The High Court has refused Thomas Murphy and Helen Nolan’s application for judicial review of Wicklow County Council’s decision to declare their retention planning application withdrawn. Mr Justice Max Barrett held that the applicants did not provide requested information within the required six-month period and that the Council was required to treat the application as withdrawn under planning regulations.
The retention application, reference 15/1065, concerned a dwelling house and garage as built, an existing entrance and ancillary site works at Baltinglass, Co Wicklow. The Council’s further information request of 4 April 2016 sought evidence that a burden required by an earlier planning permission had been registered against the land. The Council warned that the application could be declared withdrawn if a full response was not received within six months.
The applicants had named planning consultant Vincent Cronin as their agent for the retention application. The judge found that the Council continued to treat him as the central contact for that process and warned him and the applicants about the deadline and consequences. A solicitor’s letter sent in August 2016 in the context of separate enforcement proceedings enclosed evidence that an application to register the burden had been made. The judge found that this did not meet the retention request: the Council wanted evidence of completed registration, sent to the planning department in response to the request and with the relevant planning reference.
The registration was later completed, and a letter confirming it was sent through solicitors in the enforcement proceedings. But the court found there had been no timely response to the clarification request for application 15/1065. It rejected the applicants’ argument that information supplied to the Council in another context was enough, and found no failure by the Council to consider the information.
Under Article 33(3) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2015, the judge said, an application must be declared withdrawn where a further information requirement is not met within six months, unless an additional period of up to three months is agreed. No extension had been sought. The court concluded that the Council’s withdrawal order had to issue and refused all reliefs sought, including the request to quash the decision and remit the application for determination. The judgment determined the judicial review application; it did not determine the underlying retention application on its planning merits.