The Supreme Court has dismissed Thomas Harding’s appeal over his refusal of leave to challenge planning permission for a golf and leisure resort at Ballymacus Head and Preghane Point, at the entrance to Kinsale harbour.
In a judgment delivered on 2 May 2008, Chief Justice Murray said Harding had not established the “substantial interest” required under section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to seek judicial review of Cork County Council’s decision to grant permission to the developers, Xces Projects Limited, now known as Kinsale Harbour Developments Limited.
Harding had objected to the proposal and made submissions during the planning process. The High Court refused him leave to bring judicial review proceedings, finding that he lacked a substantial interest. The appeal concerned that standing requirement. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the planning permission was valid on its merits.
The judgment said participation in the planning process was open to any person, but that making an objection did not by itself establish standing to challenge a planning decision in court. For an environmental interest to qualify, it had to be personal to the applicant and significant. Harding said he regularly visited the headland and lived in a town two to three kilometres away. The Court agreed with the High Court that his claimed environmental interest was too general and remote.
Harding also argued that the Council had denied him a fair opportunity to comment on significant further information under Article 35 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001. He said the Council’s registered letter, sent on 26 September 2005, did not reach him until about 6 October, leaving roughly two working days to respond. He made observations but said he lacked time to prepare fully or obtain help from a town planner.
The Court said a person whose personal statutory right to comment had been breached could potentially have a substantial interest in seeking judicial review. But it found no wrongful act by the Council on the facts presented. The letter had been sent by registered post to the address Harding provided, and the Court said the Council was authorised to use that method. It therefore found that he had not established a substantial interest based on the alleged breach.
Murray also recorded that other alleged procedural defects—including claims about revised plans, missing information and a site notice—did not concern an interest peculiar or personal to Harding. The Court dismissed the appeal because he had not met the standing requirement. It did not determine the separate question of whether he had substantial grounds for judicial review or whether an appeal to An Bord Pleanála would have provided a sufficient remedy.