Quarry operator’s planning permission judicial review resolved in their favour

2 minute read

Our client, a quarry operator, applied for planning permission through a process known as substitute consent, seeking retrospective approval for prior work undertaken by the quarry.

The planning board, An Bord Pleanála, granted leave to apply for substitute consent but mistakenly processed the application under the wrong procedure.

The planning board made an error

The planning board made an error by issuing a decision under the wrong application type, resulting in confusion. The board believed it had completed its review, but the actual application remained open and undetermined.

Augustus Cullen Law successfully acted for the business

The planning authority sought guidance from the High Court on how to address its mistake and the quarry operator was joined as a Defendant. Representing the quarry operator, Deirdre Courtney of Augustus Cullen Law demonstrated that the board had failed to address the correct application.

The High Court ruled that the board’s decision was invalid, as it had not properly considered the actual application before it which was still live.

Section 50 (1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000

The High Court directed the board to review the correct application and issue a decision within the correct legal framework and within a very short time frame.

This case, which determined Section 50 (1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 for the first time, affirms that the planning authority must follow proper procedures and fulfil its duties in respect of a live application before it.

Speak with a commercial disputes solicitor

If you or your business is involved in a commercial dispute with another business or public body, our disputes department are available to advise you. Visit Commercial Disputes & Litigation to learn more about our services or Contact Us to arrange an initial consultation.

---

Share