Judgment: 2011-10-28 · Court archive

High Court quashes planning refusal after sole objector withdrew appeal

The court held the Board’s refusal took legal effect only when it was issued, after the appeal had been withdrawn. It declared the refusal null and void and granted certiorari.

High Court · [2011] IEHC 400

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Urrinbridge Limited (Applicant)
  • An Bord Pleanála (Respondent)
  • Wexford County Council
  • Aoibhinn O’Connor
  • John MacMenamin (Judge)
What

The court held the Board’s refusal took legal effect only when it was issued, after the appeal had been withdrawn. It declared the refusal null and void and granted certiorari.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Bloody Bridge
  • Enniscorthy
  • Lyre
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice John MacMenamin held that, for the purposes of the relevant planning legislation, the determination took effect when notice of the decision was first sent. He relied in part on statutory provisions governing the time to seek judicial review, which link that period to notice of a decision, and on the protection of parties’ legal rights. Because Ms O’Connor was the only other party to the appeal, the court said the Board had no residual jurisdiction to continue after her withdrawal.

The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for a mixed use development near Enniscorthy, ruling that the Board no longer had jurisdiction to decide the appeal after the sole objector withdrew it in writing.

Urrinbridge Limited had received permission from Wexford County Council for a development at Bloody Bridge, Lyre. Aoibhinn O’Connor appealed the grant. She operated another bowling facility in the county and objected to a proposed bowling alley in the development. Urrinbridge and Ms O’Connor settled their differences by 21 January 2011, and she wrote to withdraw her appeal.

The Board considered the appeal at a meeting on 25 January and decided to refuse permission, broadly following its inspector’s recommendation. Ms O’Connor’s withdrawal letter was hand-delivered on 28 January. The Board’s member signed the direction and order on 31 January, and the order was formally issued on 1 February.

Urrinbridge sought judicial review, arguing that the withdrawal arrived before the Board’s decision had taken legal effect. The Board argued that the appeal had been determined at the 25 January meeting, so the later withdrawal could not deprive it of jurisdiction.

Mr Justice John MacMenamin held that, for the purposes of the relevant planning legislation, the determination took effect when notice of the decision was first sent. He relied in part on statutory provisions governing the time to seek judicial review, which link that period to notice of a decision, and on the protection of parties’ legal rights. Because Ms O’Connor was the only other party to the appeal, the court said the Board had no residual jurisdiction to continue after her withdrawal.

The court declared the refusal null and void as ultra vires and granted an order of certiorari quashing it. The judgment did not grant planning permission; it set aside the Board’s refusal. The judge noted environmental concerns in the inspector’s report but said they could not alter the statutory interpretation required in the case.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review