The Supreme Court upheld a High Court decision to quash planning permission for a house beside the Whites’ home in Chapelizod, finding that major changes to the plans should have been publicised. The Court’s decision was subject to the effect of a statutory two-month time limit, which it considered separately.
The dispute concerned a proposed house in the garden of adjoining property owned by Kevin Tracey. The Whites had seen plans showing no windows facing their property and decided not to object. After the planning authority refused an earlier application, Tracey submitted a second application that was substantially similar.
Following a meeting with planning officials, Tracey was invited to submit revised plans under Article 35 of the planning regulations. The changes included turning the house’s orientation by 90 degrees, so that windows would face east towards the Whites’ garden. The authority granted permission in March 2000 without requiring fresh public notices. The Whites learned of the altered plans after permission had been granted.
The Whites sought judicial review. The High Court found the process insufficiently transparent and quashed the permission. The planning authority and Tracey appealed, arguing that whether to require new notices was for the authority to decide and that its planner had reasonably assessed the degree of overlooking.
Writing for the Supreme Court on the planning issue, Fennelly J said the planner had effectively assessed whether the development itself should be permitted, rather than whether members of the public might reasonably wish to object to the changed plans. The planner had not properly considered the radical effect of the changes or the likelihood that the Whites would want to object, the judgment said.
The Court stressed that the result was specific to the circumstances of this case. Article 35 gives planning authorities substantial discretion, and the Court said modifications do not always require new notices. Here, however, the changes were exceptional and new notices should have been issued.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision on the planning issue and said the Whites were entitled to an order of certiorari quashing the permission, subject to the effect of the two-month time limit. The judgment states that this time-limit issue was considered in the judgment of the Court; the supplied extract does not give its resolution.