Dennehy & anor v An Bord Pleanala & ors {(Approved) [2020] IEHC 473 (18 September 2020)

Dennehy & anor v An Bord Pleanala & ors {(Approved) [2020] IEHC 473 (18 September 2020)

There was no uncertainty in the law regarding the interpretation of Article 9(1)(a)(x) or the Board's obligations to consider evidence not submitted during the public consultation process; neither point raised by the Board met the threshold of exceptional public importance or public interest required for...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] IEHC 473
Parties
Applicant: Cornelius A. Dennehy; Applicant: Suzanne Dennehy; Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Respondent: Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: Attorney General; Notice Party: Donal Coffey
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Certificate for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application for certificate for leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Exempted Development, Planning Permission, Leave to Appeal, Public Right of Way, Interpretation of Planning Regulations
Planning Law Administrative Law Exempted Development Planning Permission Leave to Appeal Public Right of Way Interpretation of Planning Regulations

Source-derived case record

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

Cornelius A. Dennehy

Applicant

Suzanne Dennehy

Applicant

An Bord Pleanála

Respondent

Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

Attorney General

Respondent

Donal Coffey

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Certificate for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 9(1)(a)(x) of the Planning and Development Regulations requires the use in question to be lawful for exemption to be disapplied
  2. 2 Whether An Bord Pleanála must consider evidence not provided in submissions during public consultation

Ratio Decidendi

There was no uncertainty in the law regarding the interpretation of Article 9(1)(a)(x) or the Board's obligations to consider evidence not submitted during the public consultation process; neither point raised by the Board met the threshold of exceptional public importance or public interest required for certification for leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

application for certificate for leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Certificate for leave to appeal pursuant to s. 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, not granted.
  • Parties have fourteen days to make submissions on costs and any other orders.