The High Court has struck out judicial review proceedings brought by David Cooper over planning permission for a digital screen and outdoor cinema at Dundrum Shopping Centre. Mr Justice Max Barrett ruled on 12 July 2021 that the proceedings were out of time and disclosed no cause of action against An Bord Pleanála, the respondent named by Mr Cooper.
Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council granted permission on 8 December 2020. Mr Cooper, who the judgment says lived in the shopping centre’s immediate vicinity, had made a submission on the planning application. He said he received the Council’s decision letter on 12 January 2021, although postal records reportedly showed delivery on 14 December 2020.
Mr Cooper lodged an appeal with An Bord Pleanála on 14 January. The Council determined it was invalid because it was late. A letter notifying him of that decision contained incorrect December dates; the Board’s solicitors later explained that they were typographical errors and that the dates should have referred to January.
Mr Cooper’s court papers sought to quash the Council’s permission and restrict amplified sound, particularly after 9pm. He said Council planning staff had told him 14 January was the final day to appeal and described longstanding noise concerns. These were his claims; the judgment did not determine the noise issue or reconsider the planning permission on its merits.
The Board applied to strike out the proceedings, arguing they were out of time, improperly constituted and disclosed no reasonable cause of action. The judge noted that the Council had not been named as a respondent, although the challenge sought to set aside its decision. He also noted that the recipient of the permission had not been named as a notice party. The court found the grounds insufficiently particularised and held that the appeal had missed the statutory four-week period. It said the Board had no power to overlook that failure.
The proceedings had been filed on 16 March 2021 without leave to bring judicial review, and no application for leave had been made by the hearing on 6 July. The court held that the proceedings were out of time and that filing the papers did not stop the statutory clock. It granted the Board’s motion and struck out the proceedings. The judge said the Board should receive the costs of its application; if either party disagreed, they could notify the court within two weeks for a costs hearing. The judgment did not decide that costs hearing had occurred.