The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by Brendan Dalton challenging An Bord Pleanála’s decision to treat a planning appeal as invalid because it did not name the owners and residents he said he represented.
The appeal concerned Dublin City Council’s January 2019 permission for a residential development at Parkside, Balgriffin Park, Dublin 17. The development was proposed by Cairn Homes Properties Limited. Dalton had objected to the application and appealed the council’s permission, describing himself as acting on behalf of owners and residents of St Michael’s Cottages.
An Bord Pleanála initially acknowledged the appeal and sent it to the council and Cairn for responses. After further examination, the Board wrote to Dalton on 14 March 2019 saying the appeal was invalid because it did not state the appellants’ names and addresses. It returned the lodged documents and fee. Dalton challenged that decision, arguing that he was the sole appellant or, alternatively, that any omission was technical. He also argued that he should have had an opportunity to make submissions before the Board rejected the appeal.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald said the appeal documents, read alongside Dalton’s earlier council submission, made clear that he was acting for his clients rather than appealing on his own behalf. Section 127 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 required the appeal to give the names and addresses of the appellants as well as the name and address of a person acting for them. None of the owners’ or residents’ names and addresses appeared in the appeal or its accompanying documents.
The judge rejected the argument that the omission was too minor to invalidate the appeal. He said there was no document identifying the people Dalton represented, so the statutory requirement had not been substantially met. The Act provided that an appeal which did not comply with the requirements “shall be invalid”.
The court also rejected the fair-procedures argument. McDonald said the appeal plainly failed to meet the statutory requirement and there was nothing Dalton could have said that would change that conclusion. In any event, after the Board’s March letter, Dalton made submissions by email; the Board reconsidered the appeal documents and maintained its decision in April.
Dalton’s estoppel argument was not pleaded and did not fall for determination. The judge nevertheless said that the Board could not acquire statutory jurisdiction to hear an invalid appeal through estoppel. He concluded that no valid ground to challenge the Board’s decision had been established and dismissed the proceedings. The court did not quash the Board’s decision or order it to hear the planning appeal.