The High Court has refused Millbourne Residents Association leave to appeal a ruling on which body should reconsider a planning application after a decision by An Bord Pleanála was quashed.
In a judgment delivered on 9 October 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger found the association had not met the requirements of section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The court listed the matter for mention on 15 October for final orders; the judgment does not set out those final orders.
The underlying judicial review concerned planning permission granted by the Board to Rybo Partnership. The Board did not oppose the association’s application to quash its decision. In an earlier judgment, the High Court found that section 50A(9A) created a presumption that the matter would be remitted to the Board. It held that the association had not rebutted that presumption and that the introduction of a new County Development Plan did not, by itself, require remittal to the planning authority.
The association sought leave to appeal on two proposed questions: whether a quashed Board decision could be remitted to a local authority, and whether it should be remitted there where a new development plan had been introduced, so the authority could consider whether the proposal materially contravened that plan. The Board and Rybo Partnership opposed certification.
Justice Bolger said leave to appeal is granted sparingly and requires a clearly identified point of exceptional public importance that goes beyond the facts and parties, together with a public interest reason for an appeal. It is not an opportunity to reargue the substantive decision.
The judge considered a subsequent Supreme Court decision, Crofton Buildings Management CLG v An Bord Pleanála, which addressed remittal but not which body should receive a case. She noted its conclusion that courts must remit unless they find it would be unlawful to do so, and that refusal to remit would be rare and exceptional.
The association had argued that the planning authority had not received public views on the new plan and that the public had no opportunity to make submissions to it on the application. The judge said those points had been addressed in the earlier ruling, which referred to the Board’s power under section 131 to seek views from other people or bodies. Counsel also said the question would arise regularly and that clarification was needed on how the planning system operates, but accepted there was no statistical or other evidence supporting the claim. The court found no sufficient evidence that the issue arose in practice and refused leave to appeal.