McGovern v. Dublin Corporation [1999] IEHC 89; [1999] 2 ILRM 314 (22nd January, 1999)

McGovern v. Dublin Corporation [1999] IEHC 89; [1999] 2 ILRM 314 (22nd January, 1999)

The applicant was not entitled to planning permission by default because the proposed development was neither 'normally permissible' nor 'open for consideration' under the development plan, as it exceeded the maximum number of rooms for a guesthouse. The statutory default provision does not apply to such applications.

Citation
[1999] 2 ILRM 314
Parties
Applicant: Applicant Developer; Respondent: Respondent Planning Authority
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Planning Permission by Default, Zoning Objectives, Material Contravention, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Planning Permission by Default Zoning Objectives Material Contravention Statutory Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant Developer

Applicant

Respondent Planning Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was entitled to planning permission by default under section 26(4) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963
  2. 2 Whether the proposed development was within the 'normally permissible' or 'open for consideration' categories under the development plan
  3. 3 Whether the planning authority's delay resulted in a valid default permission

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was not entitled to planning permission by default because the proposed development was neither 'normally permissible' nor 'open for consideration' under the development plan, as it exceeded the maximum number of rooms for a guesthouse. The statutory default provision does not apply to such applications.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed