The High Court found that An Bord Pleanála’s 2018 refusal of a proposed hotel and mixed-use development in Spiddal was based partly on a material factual error and partly on an unsupported public health concern. The court said it proposed to set aside the refusal and return the appeal to the Board for further consideration, but invited written submissions before making its final order.
Baile Eamoinn Teoranta had sought permission to demolish a cottage and build an 81-bedroom hotel, two self-catering cottages, a business and food innovation centre, six houses and associated works. Galway County Council refused permission in November 2017. The Board dismissed the company’s appeal on 23 October 2018, citing deficiencies in the public sewerage system serving Spiddal, prematurity and potential harm to public health from added wastewater flows.
The company sought judicial review, arguing, among other grounds, that the Board had failed to consider Irish Water’s earlier letter saying a connection was technically feasible, and that the Board had relied on an incorrect account of Irish Water’s plans for a municipal treatment plant.
The court rejected the challenge concerning the pre-connection letter. It held that Irish Water had not made a formal submission after being notified of the planning application, and that the earlier letter addressed technical feasibility only. The court also rejected the argument that the Board had to address an alleged county council policy against private treatment plants: that policy had not formed part of the Board’s reasons for refusing permission.
However, the court found that the Board’s inspector had relied on out-of-date information from Irish Water’s website. Irish Water had applied for planning permission for a municipal plant in June 2018, and Galway County Council had granted permission on 1 October, three weeks before the Board refused the company’s appeal. The inspector’s report had said the plant remained at the planning stage and that its construction and completion dates were unknown.
The judge found this error material because the Board had relied on the expected duration of the public sewerage constraint when deciding the development was premature. The applicant had not caused the error, and the court said the Board might have reached a different decision had it known the true position.
The court also found insufficient evidence to support the Board’s public health conclusion. It noted that technical material before the inspector described the proposed private plant as providing high-quality treatment, while the inspector had identified no report or evidence showing that its discharge would significantly increase harmful bacteria at nearby beaches. The court said a public health refusal required supporting evidence.
The court did not make a final order in the judgment. It allowed the parties 14 days to submit written arguments on the order, costs and related matters.