Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant sought certiorari to quash a ministerial direction issued on 3 August 2023 under s.31 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 amending the adopted county development plan. The direction deleted or altered identified residential zonings and amended a policy on access to national roads. The Applicant's substantive complaint was that the direction did not go far enough to remove residential zonings in areas lacking adequate wastewater treatment. Three procedural grounds remained in issue, all alleging failure to have regard to the Applicant's submissions in the direction-making process. The Respondents included the Minister (the principal public authority taking the decision), Entity A (the Office of the Planning Regulator) and Company B (the local planning authority / notice party). The judgment was delivered by Judge Holland on 30 January 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the OPR's s.31AN(4) notice to the Minister and attached materials were flawed or incomplete because they did not have regard to the Applicant's submissions.
2. Whether the Minister should have recognised any such flaw in the OPR's s.31AN(4) notice before issuing the direction.
3. Whether the Minister himself failed to have regard to the Applicant's submission made pursuant to the public notice under s.31(7)(c).

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The direction is invalid because the OPR's s.31AN(4) notice did not have regard to the Applicant's submissions made on the Draft Direction and therefore the Minister's direction was grounded on an incomplete record.
• The Minister likewise failed to have regard to the Applicant's submission that many settlements lack appropriate wastewater treatment and that further dezoning was required.
• Relief sought was procedural (quashing the direction) to secure reconsideration that might lead to wider deletions of residential zoning.

Respondents' Arguments (Minister, Entity A, Company B)

• The statutory scheme requires the Chief Executive's report summarising public submissions to be furnished to the OPR and the Minister; the CE's report fairly summarised the Applicant's submissions and was considered.
• The OPR's internal report and its s.31AN(4) Notice recorded consideration of the CE report and the Applicant's submission; the Applicant bore the onus to adduce evidence that his submissions were not considered.
• Alleged complaints about other parties' submissions could not be relied upon by the Applicant (jus tertii); challenging the adopted development plan itself would have required direct judicial review within the statutory time limit.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court identified that the Applicant's remaining grounds were procedural and all rested on an asserted failure to have regard to his submissions. The Court accepted the general principle that "have-regard" obligations impose a light burden and do not require compliance or detailed reasons; judicial review of such matters is limited absent irrationality.

The statutory scheme requires the Chief Executive to prepare a report summarising public submissions and to furnish that report to both the OPR and the Minister. The Court found that the CE's s.31(8) report fairly and adequately summarised the Applicant's submissions and that the OPR considered that report in preparing its s.31AN(4) Notice and internal advice recommending the Proposed Direction. The OPR's internal report explicitly summarised the CE summary and recorded the Applicant's core criticisms.

Applying authorities (notably G.K., Rana and K.S.), the Court held that where the OPR and the Minister positively assert they considered the CE report and the record shows such consideration, the Applicant bore the evidential burden of proving non-consideration. The Applicant adduced no evidence to rebut the OPR's and Minister's verified records.

Separately, the Minister (though not required by statute) sought publication of all public submissions; the Council complied and the submissions were included in the Ministerial briefing. Given those facts, the Court inferred as a matter of probability that the Minister did have regard to the submissions. The Court therefore concluded that each procedural allegation (Grounds 4, 3 and 1) failed.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court dismissed all live grounds (Grounds 4, 3 and 1) and dismissed the proceedings.

Implications:

• Direct effect: The Impugned Direction remains in force; the Applicant's challenge was dismissed.
• The Court emphasised that the CE's s.31(8) report can satisfy the statutory and fairness requirements as the means by which public submissions are conveyed to the OPR and the Minister, absent evidence to the contrary.
• The judgment underlines the evidential burden on applicants to show affirmative non-consideration where decision-makers record that submissions were considered; no new legal principle was established beyond application of cited authorities.

Judge Holland — 30/1/26