Harding -v- Cork County Council & anor [2008] IESC 27 (02 May 2008)

Harding -v- Cork County Council & anor [2008] IESC 27 (02 May 2008)

The appellant failed to demonstrate a substantial interest in the planning decision as required by s. 50(4)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. His environmental and personal connections to the area were too general and remote. Mere participation in the planning process does not suffice for standing. No significant breach of his statutory right to make further submissions was established, as the planning authority complied with notification requirements. Accordingly, leave for judicial review was properly refused.

Citation
[2008] IESC 27
Parties
Appellant/applicant: Thomas Harding; Respondent: Cork County Council; Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Notice Party: XCES Projects Limited now known as Kinsale Harbour Developments Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
02 May 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From Refusal of Leave for Judicial Review by High Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court order refusing leave for judicial review affirmed.
Legal Topics
Locus Standi, Judicial Review, Planning Permission, Substantial Interest, Public Participation, Procedural Fairness
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Locus Standi Judicial Review Planning Permission Substantial Interest Public Participation +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Harding

Appellant/applicant

Cork County Council

Respondent

An Bord Pleanála

Respondent

XCES Projects Limited now known as Kinsale Harbour Developments Limited

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From Refusal of Leave for Judicial Review by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What constitutes a 'substantial interest' under s. 50(4)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 for the purposes of leave to seek judicial review of a planning decision?
  2. 2 Does participation in the planning process alone confer standing to seek judicial review?
  3. 3 Was the appellant denied fair procedures or his statutory right to make further observations under Article 35 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001?

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate a substantial interest in the planning decision as required by s. 50(4)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. His environmental and personal connections to the area were too general and remote. Mere participation in the planning process does not suffice for standing. No significant breach of his statutory right to make further submissions was established, as the planning authority complied with notification requirements. Accordingly, leave for judicial review was properly refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court order refusing leave for judicial review affirmed.

Orders

  • Leave to bring judicial review refused.
  • Appeal dismissed.