Article 80 of the Development Planning Act empowers the Planning Authority to revoke or modify a development permission where specific grounds exist and after a basic procedure: the Executive Chairperson prepares recommendations; the Planning Board hears the parties; and a decision follows.
The statute narrows the revocation gateway by definition and materiality. A permit may be revoked if it was issued on misleading or fraudulent information, or where there is an “error on the face of the record”—that is, an error made by the Planning Board that is apparent from the record of its proceedings. Conversely, the Board must not revoke or modify where the identified circumstance had no material bearing on the decision; in other words, had the correct information been available at the time, the outcome would not have differed.
This note now speaks only about the liability clause.
On liability, Article 80(4) is a remedial-allocation rule, not a blanket immunity.
The text provides, “No compensation may be demanded from the Authority when it acts under the provisions of sub-article (1) where the reason for the revocation or a modification of a development permission is based on fraud, incorrect information, declaration or plan, or error on the face of the record or for considerations of public safety.”
Read with the definitions above, therefore, damages are switched off only when Article 80 has been lawfully engaged—i.e., the recognised ground truly exists on the record, the materiality threshold is met, and the procedure is followed. If, on the other hand, Article 80 is wrongly applied (no qualifying “error on the face of the record,” failure of materiality, ultra vires use, or procedural non-compliance), the shield in 80(4) does not attach and ordinary tort liability may be logically pursued because the loss flows from a wrong application, not from a valid statutory correction.
A final constitutional note—again as the author’s view.
If one considers Article 80(4) objectionable ab initio (on the footing that it confers an impermissible immunity or privilege), the principled route is to attack 80(4) directly in constitutional proceedings and invite a court to declare it inconsistent with higher-order guarantees (effective remedy, property, equality). What should not be done is to re-label a loss caused by a valid Article 80(1) act as tort to bypass the statute.
