The High Court has refused Francis Scanlon’s application to overturn Sligo County Council’s decision that his planning application for a quarry had been withdrawn after the council found his response to a request for further information deficient in eight respects.
Mr Justice Hedigan held that assessing whether the information supplied met the council’s requirements involved planning expertise. The applicable standard was whether the decision was unreasonable, and the applicant had not established that no reasonable planning authority would have made it.
The quarry at Lugnagall, Glencar, Co Sligo, had operated before 1 October 1964. Under section 261 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the owner applied to register it in 2005. The council registered the quarry and later required a planning application accompanied by an environmental impact statement. The application was submitted in October 2007.
The council sought further information in December 2007. The response deadline was extended from six months to nine months, ending on 11 September 2008. The council received the response on that final day. On 7 October it notified Mr Scanlon that the response had not addressed eight matters; on 16 October it told him the application was deemed withdrawn under Article 33 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2006.
Mr Scanlon argued that the council’s decision was an administrative matter and that a detailed response should not lead to withdrawal. He also contended that some requests were improper or sought to change the application, and alleged the request was used to avoid a decision that might expose the council to compensation. Those were his submissions, not findings of the court.
The judge accepted that the response was elaborate and detailed, but said providing a response alone did not establish compliance: the planning authority had to assess whether the requested information had actually been supplied. He found the council planner had prepared a detailed report identifying deficiencies and concluded that the decision was fair and reasonable. The court also noted that no objection to the scope or lawfulness of the information request had been raised with the council when it was issued.
The judgment observed that an earlier response might have allowed the council to seek clarification within the statutory period. Because the response arrived on the last permitted day, the court said the council could not revert to the applicant’s agents before that period expired. Under Article 33(3), the application was then withdrawn by operation of law once the council determined that the information requirement had not been met.
A later response from environmental consultants Euthenics, addressing matters including expected extraction tonnage and visual assessment, came too late to be considered in that application. The judge said a fresh planning application was possible and refused the relief sought. The court did not determine a fresh application or grant planning permission.