Judicial Review

loremolis

Does anyone know whether the conditions of a planning permission can be judicially reviewed in circumstances where an appeal was not made to An Bord Pleanala?

blueythebear

loremolis wrote: »

Does anyone know whether the conditions of a planning permission can be judicially reviewed in circumstances where an appeal was not made to An Bord Pleanala?

I believe that the Meadows decision would be relevant here. I believe that one of the points canvassed was essentially that where an appeal mechanism is available, then that mechanism should be used to remedy any issues with the original decision so that Judicial Review is not suitable where there is an availability of a statutory appeal.

However, if you are outside the time limits to appeal a planning decision (think it's four weeks?) then there is no discretion to extend that time limit so that the statutory appeal mechanism is not available.

In those circumstances, then judicial review may be appropriate but bear in mind the time limits for Planning Judicial Review is 8 weeks.

As always see a solicitor!

loremolis

blueythebear wrote: »

I believe that the Meadows decision would be relevant here. I believe that one of the points canvassed was essentially that where an appeal mechanism is available, then that mechanism should be used to remedy any issues with the original decision so that Judicial Review is not suitable where there is an availability of a statutory appeal.

However, if you are outside the time limits to appeal a planning decision (think it's four weeks?) then there is no discretion to extend that time limit so that the statutory appeal mechanism is not available.

In those circumstances, then judicial review may be appropriate but bear in mind the time limits for Planning Judicial Review is 8 weeks.

As always see a solicitor!

Thanks.

I'm curious as to what the Meadows decison was about. Have you a link or a copy?

234

Have a look here. For some reason courts.ie published all the judgments separately, but there are five separate judgments, each with a slightly different take on the issues. From memory I think it concerned an immigration decision and the upshot (in incredibly simplified terms) was that where fundamental rights are affected, the courts will apply a higher standard of scrutiny than the normal JR standard.

Procrastastudy

Meadows... /shudder!

I think there is a bit of a misconception here but I'm very often wrong so sorry in advance if I am.

The OPs question relates to Judicial Review case on point is G v DPP. I believe Meadows has more to do with JR quashing a decision of an administrative body, the that case immigration/minister for justice. The standard in most cases is the Keegan/O'Keeffe standard which essential (and put very simply) says that if there is any evidence to support the decision made the court will not interfere (curial deference). In other words the court weigh the evidence of the decision made. This is the Irish definition of Legal unreasonableness and it is very narrow.

Meadows is an exceptionally complicated judgement that Had Hardiman J on one side saying the Keegan/O'Keeffe should always apply and that 'it is more flexible than it's critics allow' and Denham J on the other saying there should be a different test in Human Rights cases. I don't think Meadows would be much use to you in a planning issue. Meadows was further complicated by although it was a 3/2 majority decision Murray CJ judgement isn't really along the same lines and Denham J and the other one.

Article - maybe more digestible than 150+ pages of Meadows!

ResearchWill

loremolis wrote: »

Does anyone know whether the conditions of a planning permission can be judicially reviewed in circumstances where an appeal was not made to An Bord Pleanala?

Simple answer, an applicant should if possible exhaust remedies, but caveat only if the appeal can remedy the issue.

If an appeal was not taken for what ever reason, and is now not possible the JR may be possible, but as the time limits in Planning are so short I doubt if the time to appeal has expired before the time to take JR.