Builders’ planning application rejected

AN application by two builders aimed at requiring Clare County Council to grant them default permission to develop two houses on a site in Lahinch has been rejected.

In the High Court yesterday, Mr Justice John Hedigan said the courts should never lose sight of the fact the integrity of the planning process is a “vital national interest”.

Bad planning decisions “sentence generations to live with the consequences” and, in interpreting the legislation, the courts should never lose sight of the overarching national interest in the integrity of the planning process, he said in the course of his judgment.

Martin and Michael Ryan, developers based in Limerick city, had applied to the council in May 2007 for planning permission to demolish an existing dwelling on the site at Dough, Liscannor Road, and construct two new two-storey houses plus car parking spaces.

In late June 2007, they were advised in error that permission was refused but the error was corrected within days and the judge said the brothers were aware by July 3, 2007, at the latest that no formal decision had been made.

A draft order refusing permission had been made but, due to an oversight, was not signed within the required time period.

The brothers then sought default permission but the council in September 2007 refused to allow them avail of this mechanism.

The council argued the proposed development contravened the Clare County Development Plan 2005 or was contrary to its general objectives, including conserving and enhancing the quality and character of the area and protecting residential amenity.

The local authority said the immediate surrounding area was dominated by single-storey and dormer-style bungalows considerably more discreet than the houses proposed by the Ryans.

Rejecting those arguments, Mr Justice Hedigan said the proposed development would be similar to many in the surrounding area and not entirely out of character and he could not accept it contravened the development plan.

The council had placed considerable emphasis on the volume of objections to the proposed development but that was only relevant when considering the materiality of any contravention as opposed to deciding if one exists, he said.

However, the judge accepted the council’s arguments of the need to have regard to the local area plan. He ruled the court did not have the power to make an order effectively requiring the council to grant default permission when regard to the LAP was an essential prerequisite to any decision by the council.

The court could not itself act as a planning authority and, unless it could be shown a default permission would be fully in accordance with the local area plan, such permission could not be granted.