The Supreme Court dismissed Thomas Harding’s appeal after finding that he had not shown the “substantial interest” required to seek judicial review of planning permission for a hotel, golf and leisure resort near Kinsale Harbour.
The judgment, delivered by Justice Kearns on 2 May 2008, said the statutory test requires an applicant to show an interest that is personal, significant and connected to the proposed development. That requirement is separate from the need to show substantial grounds for challenging a planning decision; satisfying one does not make up for failing to satisfy the other.
Cork County Council granted permission to Kinsale Harbour Developments Ltd., then known as XCES Projects Ltd., on 1 October 2005, subject to 72 conditions. Harding, a retired merchant seaman who lives in Kinsale, had objected during the planning process. He sought leave in the High Court to bring judicial review proceedings, but the application was refused in October 2006 because he had not shown a substantial interest. The High Court certified a point of law for appeal to the Supreme Court.
Harding lived about two to three kilometres from the proposed site at Ballymacus Head and Preghane Point. He relied on having grown up in Ballymacus, family connections there, frequent visits and sailing trips in the area. He accepted he had no affected property or financial interest. The judgment records that an uncle owned part of the headland and that relatives owned houses within the proposed development area.
The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s assessment. It said the project’s scale could widen the range of people with a substantial interest, but Harding’s family connection and pattern of visits were not enough. The Court described the required interest as a demonstrable stake connected to the development and its likely effects.
The judgment also held that substantial grounds and substantial interest are distinct statutory requirements. It said a procedural error in a planning process does not, by itself, turn a non-substantial interest into a substantial one. The decision concerned Harding’s standing to challenge the planning decision; the Court did not determine the merits of his proposed grounds for judicial review.
The appeal was dismissed. The judgment did not quash or otherwise alter the planning permission.