The High Court refused an extension of time for Steven O’Riordan to challenge planning permission for a development in Dublin 9, and dismissed his application for leave to seek judicial review as out of time.
An Bord Pleanála decided to grant permission to MKN Investments Limited and Caltrack Limited, trading as Omni Park Shopping Centre Consortium, for 324 apartments in three blocks, an 81-bedroom aparthotel, a crèche, a café, restaurant and retail unit, and associated development northeast of Omni Park Shopping Centre.
The board made its decision on 1 September 2020 and formally granted permission by order on 3 September. O’Riordan, who had objected to the development, was notified by letter dated 4 September, received on 7 September. The statutory eight-week period ran from the date of the decision, rather than the date he received notice. The judge calculated that the deadline expired on 28 October.
O’Riordan first tried to lodge papers with the Courts Service on 30 October. The matter proceeded through preliminary court listings, and the judge heard his application for an extension on 21 December. O’Riordan appeared without a lawyer. Counsel represented the board and the two developers, who were joined as notice parties.
Under section 50(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the court could extend the deadline only if there was good and sufficient reason and the circumstances causing the delay were outside the applicant’s control. The judge said planning cases require a strict approach because developers may be prejudiced if they cannot rely on permissions after the short statutory period expires.
O’Riordan relied on receiving the notification after the board’s decision, his understanding that time ran from the letter, a bank holiday, efforts to have papers sworn, dealings with the Courts Service, Covid-19 restrictions and his status as a lay litigant. The judge found these explanations did not satisfy the statutory test. In particular, the applicant had not tried to lodge papers before the deadline, so difficulties encountered after 30 October could not explain a failure to apply in time.
The court refused the extension and dismissed the application for leave to seek judicial review as out of time. It did not determine the merits of the proposed challenge to the planning permission.