The High Court awarded costs to nearby residents and a developer after an error in Cork County Council’s planning records left a valid application off a public computer listing. The court accepted that residents were misled when they asked the council about the application, but found the council had not acted in contempt of court.
The case concerned Malobar Partnership’s planning application for development at Coolroe, Ballincollig, Co. Cork. An earlier application, reference 05/904, had been returned as invalid in February 2005. The partnership lodged a further application on 1 March, reference 05/1174, which the council deemed valid.
Residents sought judicial review, alleging that the council had wrongly told them no valid application had been made and had failed to put an acknowledgement on the planning file. They said the five-week period for making observations expired before they could respond. The developer denied wrongdoing and said the application had been properly made.
The council’s planning officer said the new application was entered on the register and its acknowledgement was placed on the file. But the application’s date was entered as 2004 rather than 2005, so it did not appear on a planning list provided to one of the residents. The council also said the application was available through its computer systems and that residents could have searched using other details.
The court examined a printout covering applications received between 28 February and 4 March 2005. It noted that reference 05/1174 was missing between applications 05/1173 and 05/1175. The judge said a public computer facility had to be accurate, and members of the public could not be expected to check the underlying planning file when a computerised service was provided.
The judge accepted the residents’ evidence that they had made enquiries during March and were misled. He said council staff may also have been misled by the missing reference. The court said the gap in the sequence should have prompted a query by the council, and that it was for the council to verify the public and staff facility against the primary record.
The parties had attempted to resolve the dispute through lifting the injunction and re-advertising the application. The remaining issues were the scope of that arrangement, an allegation of contempt, and costs. The court found no contempt, saying the council had acted to resolve difficulties caused by its error. It awarded the residents their costs against the council and also awarded the developer its costs against the council, accepting that the developer was innocent of the misleading of residents.