Richardson v The Minister for the Environment and James 04-Nov-2020 [2020] JRC 232 (04 November 2020)

Richardson v The Minister for the Environment and James 04-Nov-2020 [2020] JRC 232 (04 November 2020)

The applicant's civil right to enjoy his property was directly affected by the grant of planning permission, particularly due to the first-floor balcony. Exceptional circumstances existed because the planning department failed to notify the applicant or publish the decision, and the applicant acted promptly once aware. The court therefore has discretion to extend time for the appeal, and the extension is granted.

Citation
[2020] JRC 232
Parties
Applicant: Simon John Richardson; Respondent/developer: Michael James; Respondent/decision Maker: Minister for the Environment
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
04 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Planning Appeal (out of Time) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Planning Permission
Outcome
Application granted; extension of time to appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time for Appeal, Third Party Planning Appeals, Right to Be Heard, Civil Rights Under Article 6 ECHR, Notification of Planning Decisions
Administrative Law Planning Law Human Rights Extension of Time for Appeal Third Party Planning Appeals Right to Be Heard Civil Rights Under Article 6 ECHR Notification of Planning Decisions

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon John Richardson

Applicant

Michael James

Respondent/developer

Minister for the Environment

Respondent/decision Maker

Procedural Posture

Planning Appeal (out of Time) / Application for Extension of Time to Appeal Planning Permission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has discretion to extend time for a third party planning appeal under exceptional circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the grant of planning permission directly affects the applicant's civil rights under Article 6 ECHR
  3. 3 Whether the applicant acted timeously upon learning of the planning decision

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's civil right to enjoy his property was directly affected by the grant of planning permission, particularly due to the first-floor balcony. Exceptional circumstances existed because the planning department failed to notify the applicant or publish the decision, and the applicant acted promptly once aware. The court therefore has discretion to extend time for the appeal, and the extension is granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted; extension of time to appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Time for filing the appeal is extended; Mr Richardson's appeal may proceed out of time.