Appealing a An Bord Pleanala Decision

godtabh

From reading this

http://www.pleanala.ie/guide/appeal_guide.htm

This can only be done High Court as part of a judicial review. Is it based on a point of law or the facts of the decision.

If its based on a point of law I'll leave it there as I dont know enough about it.

If tis based on the facts of the decision would something like this be applicable


The ABP refused the application because the grass was blue when in fact the grass was green i.e they have gotten their facts wrong.

nuac

Godtabh
A Judicial Review of a ABP is based on legal issues around the validity of the ABP decision making rather than a third bite at the planning and environmental issues

A discussion of those legal issues could stray into breaches of the rules here re legal advice so I have to close this thread

nuac

After hearing from Godtaobh and on mature reflection thread re-opened

loremolis

godtabh wrote: »

From reading this

http://www.pleanala.ie/guide/appeal_guide.htm

This can only be done High Court as part of a judicial review. Is it based on a point of law or the facts of the decision.

If its based on a point of law I'll leave it there as I dont know enough about it.

If tis based on the facts of the decision would something like this be applicable


The ABP refused the application because the grass was blue when in fact the grass was green i.e they have gotten their facts wrong.

What are the facts and what did they say they were?

godtabh

This is just me thinking out loud so that's why I used the example of being refused because the board stated the grass was blue when in fact the grass was green. A fact is a fact as they say.

In relation to a point of law what does that mean?

Pro Hoc Vice

godtabh wrote: »

This is just me thinking out loud so that's why I used the example of being refused because the board stated the grass was blue when in fact the grass was green. A fact is a fact as they say.

In relation to a point of law what does that mean?

Well not unless its Kentucky Blue Grass (ok it not blue) but Little bluestem does.

An error in law is that the body has misapplied the law, accepting as valid a application that is invalid because of a Statute for example or accepting a appeal out of time.

MarkAnthony

Good ol' Administrative law. Courts are slow to intervene unless the decision flies in the face of common sense. (This is separate from the point of law issue)

I believe the second year law student example is the Stardust tribunal awarding differing amounts of compensation in almost identical circumstances.

TBH I've had a lot of beers since I did Admin Law - I might have mixed most of that up :pac:

godtabh

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Good ol' Administrative law. Courts are slow to intervene unless the decision flies in the face of common sense. (This is separate from the point of law issue)

I believe the second year law student example is the Stardust tribunal awarding differing amounts of compensation in almost identical circumstances.

TBH I've had a lot of beers since I did Admin Law - I might have mixed most of that up :pac:

That sounds like getting facts wrong to come up with a dodgy conclusion

Water John

Well you have two bites of the cherry on the planning issues at LA and ABP level usually. This makes any planning application run into 12/15 months.
Do you want this process to continue in circles ad nauseum?

MarkAnthony

godtabh wrote: »

That sounds like getting facts wrong to come up with a dodgy conclusion

My understanding or the caselaw on the subject - probably a valid critique of both :pac:

NUTLEY BOY

godtabh wrote: »

From reading this

http://www.pleanala.ie/guide/appeal_guide.htm

This can only be done High Court as part of a judicial review. Is it based on a point of law or the facts of the decision.

If its based on a point of law I'll leave it there as I dont know enough about it.

If tis based on the facts of the decision would something like this be applicable


The ABP refused the application because the grass was blue when in fact the grass was green i.e they have gotten their facts wrong.

The basic concept of judicial review is that it is concerned primarily with form and not substance.

Generally, judicial review looks at the procedural propriety of and procedural fairness of a decision and or the decision making process.

An administrative decision might be stupid in terms of it's essence but if it was formed in compliance with procedural propriety and fairness - i.e. the rules of natural justice - it is a good decision as far as judicial review is concerned and will not be overturned.

Sometimes you will hear disgruntled people declare that they will have a matter judicially reviewed. This is a conceptual error. Judicial review is not available for the asking, it does not apply to many areas of legal disgruntlement and you even have to apply to convince a judge of the High Court to grant an order for permission to initiate judicial review proceedings.

As far as a blue grass type decision goes that comes within the class of decision that would be called per incuriam if it was a judicial decision. i.e. obviously defective in it's essence. The problem with the scenario outlined here is that the decision will probably operate with force of law !!

Not legal advice - but in a theoretical blue grass decision would it be possible to write to ABP pointing out the axiomatic defect, request them to vacate their decision and reconsider by reference to the correct facts ?

Mr. Incognito

I've been involved in Judicial Reviews of an Bord Plenala.

Unless you have the funds for a good lawyer and barrister forget it.

You have to show that what happened was a breach of Planning Law or Fair Procedures or other actionable grounds based on case Law and the Planning Regulations.

This is a technical appeal process. A Layperson would not have a hope.

Even the Appeals Process is technical. It is made ex parte and the perfected order has to be taken up and served within 7 days of perfection.

Order 84 refers. http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/0/a53b0f76ffc6c5b780256d2b0046b3dc?OpenDocument

4ensic15

If the grass was said to be blue there would be a possible argument on the basis of irrationality. One successful appeal of this type happened where ABP reused planning permission for a development having shortly beforehand granted permission for a similar development next door.

godtabh

4ensic15 wrote: »

If the grass was said to be blue there would be a possible argument on the basis of irrationality. One successful appeal of this type happened where ABP reused planning permission for a development having shortly beforehand granted permission for a similar development next door.

Again this is me thinking out loud but if you have two applications on one site. One granted (first) and a second one refused where the only difference is a change in house type does the above apply?

Do you have a reference to that case?

Water John

By house type, do you mean single, dormer, 2 storey?

Planners often reject houses that they feel don't suit the location.

4ensic15

godtabh wrote: »

Again this is me thinking out loud but if you have two applications on one site. One granted (first) and a second one refused where the only difference is a change in house type does the above apply?

Not necessarily.

godtabh wrote: »

Do you have a reference to that case?

O' Keeffe v. An Bord Pleanala [1993] 1 I.R. 39 .