Murphy & anor -v- Wicklow County Council [2018] IEHC 147 (21 March 2018)

Murphy & anor -v- Wicklow County Council [2018] IEHC 147 (21 March 2018)

The applicants failed to provide the required information in the manner and within the timeframe stipulated by Article 33(3) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2015. The Council was therefore obliged to declare the application withdrawn. Information provided in a different context or without the correct reference did not satisfy the statutory requirement. There was no de minimis or technical breach; the failure was complete and substantive.

Citation
[2018] IEHC 147
Parties
Applicant: Thomas Murphy; Applicant: Helen Nolan; Respondent: Wicklow County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Planning Permission, Retention Permission, Judicial Review, Local Government Procedure, Article 33 Planning and Development Regulations 2001
Administrative Law Planning Law Planning Permission Retention Permission Judicial Review Local Government Procedure Article 33 Planning and Development Regulations 2001

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

Parties

Thomas Murphy

Applicant

Helen Nolan

Applicant

Wicklow County Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent lawfully declared the applicants' planning retention application withdrawn for failure to respond to a further information request within the statutory period under Article 33(3) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2015.
  2. 2 Whether information provided outside the prescribed process or to a different department/agent of the local authority satisfies the statutory requirement.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to provide the required information in the manner and within the timeframe stipulated by Article 33(3) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001-2015. The Council was therefore obliged to declare the application withdrawn. Information provided in a different context or without the correct reference did not satisfy the statutory requirement. There was no de minimis or technical breach; the failure was complete and substantive.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • All reliefs sought by the applicants are refused.