Doyle, Re Judicial Review

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review of a decision by the Planning Appeals Commission ("PAC") dated 6 February 2014. The PAC allowed the appeal by Company A (a university) against the refusal by the Department of Environment ("the Department") to grant planning permission for a mixed-use regeneration development in a city centre location. The development included a multi-storey car park, retail unit, landscaping, loading bay, and pedestrian crossing. The development was part of a larger regeneration scheme for a new campus projected to be a significant regeneration project over the next 5 to 10 years.

The Applicant did not participate in the initial planning permission application process nor in the appeal before the PAC, despite public advertisements providing opportunity for participation. The Applicant only became aware of the PAC decision approximately two months after it was issued and subsequently sought judicial review.

The PAC and the Notice Parties opposed the application for leave to apply for judicial review on grounds including lack of standing, delay in bringing the challenge, and that the challenge was unarguable and impermissibly sought to re-open planning merits already decided.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Applicant has sufficient interest (standing) to bring the judicial review challenge.
2. Whether the application for judicial review was brought promptly and within the statutory time limits, or whether there is good reason to extend time.
3. Whether the grounds advanced in the application have a realistic prospect of success or are unarguable.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The Applicant contended for leave to apply for judicial review challenging the PAC decision allowing the appeal by Company A.
• The Applicant asserted grounds that were not detailed in the provided opinion.
• The Applicant claimed to have discovered the decision late and sought to challenge it despite not participating in the earlier statutory process.

Respondent's and Notice Parties' Arguments

• The PAC and Notice Parties argued the Applicant lacked standing as she did not participate in the public consultation or appeal process despite reasonable opportunity.
• They asserted the application was not brought promptly and no good reason existed to extend the statutory time limit.
• The challenge was unarguable and impermissibly attempted to re-open merits already decided.
• Granting leave would cause manifest prejudice and endanger a major regeneration project benefiting third parties.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first addressed the issue of standing, emphasizing the statutory requirement that an applicant must have a "sufficient interest" to bring judicial review proceedings. The court noted that the statutory scheme provided for public advertisement and opportunity to participate in the planning and appeal processes. The Applicant did not participate at any stage despite these opportunities.

The court relied on established case law to explain that standing is a relative concept influenced by the public interest and participation. It distinguished between cases where an interested person was misled and thus deprived of a reasonable opportunity to participate, and cases of mere ignorance. The Applicant's failure to participate was due to ignorance, which does not confer standing.

Regarding delay, the court applied the statutory requirement that judicial review applications must be brought promptly and within three months of the grounds arising. The court rejected the argument that the time should run from the date the Applicant learned of the decision. The application was brought exactly three months after the decision but was not prompt. No good reason was found to extend the time limit.

The court underscored the importance of promptness in planning cases to avoid prejudice to third parties and disruption to significant development projects. The affidavit evidence demonstrated that granting leave would cause manifest prejudice and jeopardize a major regeneration scheme.

Given the findings on standing and delay, the court concluded there was no need to consider the merits of the grounds advanced, which were accepted to have no realistic prospect of success.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED LEAVE to apply for judicial review and DISMISSED the application on all grounds.

The direct effect is that the PAC's decision allowing the appeal by Company A stands, enabling the regeneration development to proceed. No new legal precedent was established, as the decision applied established principles regarding standing, promptness, and the public interest in planning judicial reviews. The ruling reinforces the importance of participation in statutory processes and the strict application of time limits to protect third-party interests and public projects.