The High Court quashed An Bord Pleanála’s decision to let Ursula O’Sullivan and Alan Dunlea appeal a Cork County Council permission for 60 houses at Gleann Fia, near Blarney. It also quashed the Board’s decision to accept their appeal as valid.
Mr Justice Robert Haughton held that the neighbours did not meet two statutory requirements for leave to appeal under section 37(6) of the Planning and Development Act 2000: their land did not adjoin the permitted development site, and the conditions attached to the permission did not make the permitted development materially different from the application.
The permission, granted in October 2018 to Gleann Fia Homes Limited, covered 60 houses and associated works. A special contribution condition required the developer to pay Cork County Council €199,980 towards a pedestrian and cycle bridge linking the estate with Tower village. Plans submitted during the application process showed a possible bridge and footpaths crossing the notice parties’ land, which lay about 238 metres from the development site.
The notice parties had not made submissions during the initial planning application. Their representatives later objected to the proposed route, saying it crossed their clients’ land without consent. The council did not treat that letter as a valid submission because it was received outside the statutory period. The Board granted leave to appeal, relying on conditions 1 and 35 and finding that they could materially affect the neighbours’ enjoyment or the value of their land.
The judge found that “adjoining” meant land next to and joined with the development land. The neighbours’ property was separated from the site and therefore did not qualify. He also found that neither condition authorised or required construction of the bridge or footpaths. Condition 35 required a contribution towards proposed works, which might not be carried out; any council works would require further statutory procedures.
On the separate question of whether the conditions could reduce the value of the neighbours’ land, the judge said the Board had some evidence on which it could reach that view. He would not have quashed the decision on that ground alone. He did not decide whether the Board’s reasons were inadequate, because the first two requirements were not met.
The court made no order remitting the matter to the Board. The judgment did not quash the underlying planning permission for the houses; it quashed the leave to appeal and the Board’s acceptance of the purported appeal.