Walsh v. Kildare County Council [2000] IEHC 103; [2001] 1 IR 483 (29th July, 2000)

Walsh v. Kildare County Council [2000] IEHC 103; [2001] 1 IR 483 (29th July, 2000)

The applicant's address for service was inadequate to afford the planning authority the full range of options for giving notice as required by Regulation 18(1) and Section 7(1) of the 1963 Act. The proposed development would have involved a material breach of the development plan, precluding entitlement to default...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2001] 1 IR 483
Parties
Applicant: Patrick Walsh; Respondent: Kildare County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Default Planning Permission, Service of Notice, Material Contravention of Development Plan, Address Sufficiency in Planning Applications
Planning Law Administrative Law Default Planning Permission Service of Notice Material Contravention of Development Plan Address Sufficiency in Planning Applications

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Walsh

Applicant

Kildare County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to default planning permission under Section 27(3)(a) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's address for service was sufficiently accurate under Regulation 18(1) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994
  3. 3 Whether the proposed development would constitute a material contravention of the County Development Plan

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's address for service was inadequate to afford the planning authority the full range of options for giving notice as required by Regulation 18(1) and Section 7(1) of the 1963 Act. The proposed development would have involved a material breach of the development plan, precluding entitlement to default permission.

Court Disposition

application refused