The High Court refused Shirley O’Brien leave to seek judicial review of planning permission for redevelopment of two mews premises in Monkstown Crescent, despite finding a substantial ground for arguing that the permission should be quashed.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice O’Neill on 1 June 2006, concerned permission granted by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council on 19 December 2003. The proposal involved demolition and rebuilding of the mews buildings at 6A and 7A Monkstown Crescent, a basement wine cellar, two retail units, two apartments and parking. Part of the development was within the curtilage of No. 6 Longford Terrace, which the judgment identifies as a protected structure.
O’Brien lived at 15 Longford Terrace, about 77 metres from the site. She argued that the permission breached planning law and the development plan, and that her residence, interest in local heritage and membership of An Taisce and a residents’ association gave her a substantial interest. She had not made an objection in her personal capacity; An Taisce had objected to the application.
The judge found substantial grounds to contend that section 57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 applied to the permission. That provision bars permission to demolish a protected structure except in exceptional circumstances. The judgment said the planning report contained no evidence that the council had considered whether exceptional circumstances justified demolition.
The court rejected the other development-plan grounds as insufficient to meet the substantial-grounds threshold. It considered that the planning report and permission showed consideration of the conservation-area policy, and that the older-buildings policy did not prohibit demolition.
However, the judge found O’Brien had not established a substantial interest in this particular application. The development’s visual effect from her home would not be significantly detrimental, in his view, and a general or strong interest in planning matters did not amount to the personal interest required by the statute. Membership of An Taisce did not give her separate special status.
The court also found no good and sufficient reason for her not to have made her own submission. The judge said her membership of An Taisce and decision to express her objections through the organisation did not satisfy that requirement.
Finally, the judge considered whether the identified ground warranted leave despite those failures, on the basis of a clear breach of law or abuse by the planning authority. He concluded that the omission appeared to be an oversight, not a conscious disregard of the law or an abuse, and found no exceptional circumstances justifying leave on that residual basis. Leave to apply for judicial review was refused. The court did not determine a full judicial review or quash the planning permission.