The High Court has denied Micaud Investment Management Limited’s challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s decision to treat its planning appeal as invalid. The court held that the statutory requirements applied because Micaud appealed as a third party and did not submit the planning authority’s acknowledgement of its submissions.
The judicial review concerned a retention planning application for a dwelling at Monalahy, Newcastle, Blarney, County Cork. Cork County Council had granted permission to Michael Holland for a dwelling in 2014. A later application sought retention permission for a two-storey dwelling incorporating a basement and car port, with changes to the site layout.
Micaud said it had taken possession of the property as mortgagee in possession after Holland could no longer make loan repayments. It told the Council of its position in December 2015, and its retained architects later responded to the Council’s request for further information. The Council refused the retention application in April 2016, citing concerns about whether the applicant or owner met rural housing need criteria and whether the development complied with a condition attached to the earlier permission.
Micaud appealed the refusal to An Bord Pleanála. It argued that the Council had accepted and considered its submissions as if it were acting for Holland, so it could not provide an acknowledgement that the Council had never issued. The Board treated the appeal as invalid because it lacked the acknowledgement required by section 127(1)(e) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The court found that the appeal was made by Micaud as a third party, and that it had paid the third-party appeal fee. It said section 127’s requirements were mandatory and the Board’s role was to check whether the appeal complied with those statutory conditions. The Board was not required to investigate whether the Council should have issued an acknowledgement or to decide whether Micaud had acquired a different status through the Council’s handling of its correspondence.
The judge also rejected Micaud’s claim that the Council had treated it as the first-party applicant. The planning file, including the planner’s report, showed that the Council continued to treat Holland as the applicant for retention permission. The court concluded that the proposed “hybrid status” was not recognised by the planning legislation and that the grounds of challenge had not been made out.
The High Court denied the relief sought in the judicial review. It did not decide the planning merits of the retention application; the judgment addressed the validity of Micaud’s appeal to the Board.