The rights of landowners to object to developments on adjoining lands may be curtailed due to an error in the drafting of the Planning and Development Act 2000, it has emerged.
The Department of the Environment yesterday acknowledged the error - essentially a difference in meaning between the phrases "permission has been granted" and "a decision has been taken to grant permission" - but said it hoped the courts, if a challenge was mounted, would understand the "spirit and intention" of the relevant section of the Act."
Under the Planning and Development Act, certain restrictions were placed on the lodging of appeals to An Bord Pleanála. The effect of one of these restrictions is that should anyone wish to object to the board, they would first have to record their concerns with the planning authority.
To mitigate the severity of these provisions - a neighbour may have deliberately not objected to a householder's extension because the original plans were to his/her satisfaction, only to see the final grant of permission contain unacceptable amendments worked out between the authority and the applicant - the legislation contained a loophole section (37) which reads: "Notwithstanding sub-section (1)(a), a person who has an interest in land adjoining land in respect of which permission has been granted may, within the appropriate period and on payment of the appropriate fee, apply to the board for leave to appeal against a decision of the planning authority under section 34."
However, according to a town planning consultant who contacted this newspaper, no planning decision can be appealed to the board, after a final grant of planning permission, as the "relevant period" for objections has expired.
It is, he says, a common misconception that a planning authority issues permission which is then appealed to An Bord Pleanála.
A spokeswoman for the Department of the Environment said yesterday the section should not have contained the words "permission has been granted", but instead "a decision has been taken to grant planning permission".
The spokeswoman said the board had "obviously interpreted the section in the way in which it had been intended".
