Larkin & Anor v Roscommon County Council (Approved) [2025] IEHC 250 (25 April 2025)

Larkin & Anor v Roscommon County Council (Approved) [2025] IEHC 250 (25 April 2025)

The High Court found that the applicants failed to exhaust the alternative remedy of appeal to An Bord Pleanála due to an error in the fee, and that the planning authority's decision, while containing minor typographical errors, was not invalid. The court held that the applicants' complaints were matters for appeal and not judicial review, and that the planning authority provided sufficient engagement with submissions and reasons. No breach of fair procedures or natural justice was established. The application for judicial review was refused.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 250
Parties
Applicant: Michael Larkin; Applicant: Maureen Larkin; Respondent: Roscommon County Council; Notice Party: John Heneghan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
25 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Retention Permission, Environmental Impact Assessment, Fair Procedures, Natural Justice, Development Contributions
Administrative Law Planning Law Environmental Law Planning Permission Retention Permission Environmental Impact Assessment Fair Procedures Natural Justice +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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Larkin

Applicant

Maureen Larkin

Applicant

Roscommon County Council

Respondent

John Heneghan

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning authority's decision to grant retention and planning permission was lawful
  2. 2 Whether the site notice complied with statutory requirements
  3. 3 Whether the planning authority provided adequate reasons for its decision

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the applicants failed to exhaust the alternative remedy of appeal to An Bord Pleanála due to an error in the fee, and that the planning authority's decision, while containing minor typographical errors, was not invalid. The court held that the applicants' complaints were matters for appeal and not judicial review, and that the planning authority provided sufficient engagement with submissions and reasons. No breach of fair procedures or natural justice was established. The application for judicial review was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • No order as to costs