ARTICLE
22 August 2018

Courts Curtail Ability To Challenge Extensions Of Planning Permission

M
Matheson

Contributor

Established in 1825 in Dublin, Ireland and with offices in Cork, London, New York, Palo Alto and San Francisco, more than 700 people work across Matheson’s six offices, including 96 partners and tax principals and over 470 legal and tax professionals. Matheson services the legal needs of internationally focused companies and financial institutions doing business in and from Ireland. Our clients include over half of the world’s 50 largest banks, 6 of the world’s 10 largest asset managers, 7 of the top 10 global technology brands and we have advised the majority of the Fortune 100.
In July 2018, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a High Court judgment that a decision to extend planning permission does not require public participation.
Ireland Real Estate and Construction

In July 2018, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a High Court judgment that a decision to extend planning permission does not require public participation. Most helpfully the High Court also held that an extension is not a development consent under the EU Environmental Impact Assessment ("EIA") Directive, so does not have the consequential participation or assessment requirements.

This line of cases should curtail the ability to challenge planning extensions.

Details

A ten year planning permission to build a new runway was granted at Dublin Airport in 2007. That permission was extended by Fingal County Council in 2017 for a further five years to 2022. The local residents unsuccessfully challenged the decision to extend the planning permission in the High Court. The residents were not permitted to appeal to the Court of Appeal in February 2018. In July, the Supreme Court refused the local residents' final attempt to appeal the High Court's decision.

One of the arguments raised by the local residents in the High Court was that the public should have an opportunity to participate in decisions to grant a planning extension. However, the Supreme Court noted the High Court's finding that the Planning Acts do not provide for, nor require, any public consultation in that extension process. The Supreme Court also referred to the High Court's finding that a planning extension was not a "development consent" under the EIA Directive. The High Court had rejected a similar argument that another Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive was required. Thus, the planning authority is not obliged to consider the EIA directive (and / or the Habitats Directive) when deciding to extend planning permission.

The High Court re-affirmed that a planning authority, on an application for an extension, "must extend the appropriate permission, provided that the prescribed requirements are complied with". The Supreme Court also noted the previous case law regarding the mandatory nature of the extension permission once the necessary conditions are established.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More