Judgment: 2017-05-30 · Court archive

Supreme Court rules quarry yard extension was not exempt from planning permission

The Court allowed An Bord Pleanála’s appeal, holding that the High Court had misinterpreted the exemption for works to existing structures. The certified appeal concerned that exemption alone, not whether block-making was a material change of use.

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Michael Cronin (Readymix) Ltd (Respondent)
  • An Bord Pleanála (Appellant)
What

The Court allowed An Bord Pleanála’s appeal, holding that the High Court had misinterpreted the exemption for works to existing structures. The certified appeal concerned that exemption alone, not whether block-making was a material change of use.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Coolcaslagh
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Supreme Court has allowed An Bord Pleanála’s appeal in a planning dispute over a two-acre hard-surfaced yard at a quarry operated by Michael Cronin (Readymix) Ltd in Coolcaslagh, Co Kerry. The Court held that extending the yard did not come within the exemption in section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

The Supreme Court has allowed An Bord Pleanála’s appeal in a planning dispute over a two-acre hard-surfaced yard at a quarry operated by Michael Cronin (Readymix) Ltd in Coolcaslagh, Co Kerry. The Court held that extending the yard did not come within the exemption in section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

The company had sought judicial review of the Board’s ruling that the yard works amounted to development and were not exempt from planning permission. The High Court granted relief to the company, finding that an extension could qualify as an improvement or alteration under the exemption. A question was certified for appeal to the Supreme Court on the interpretation of that section.

The Board argued that the exemption covered a limited class of works to a structure, and did not include an extension simply because the developer considered it an improvement or because it had little visual effect. The company argued that the yard works were for the improvement or alteration of an existing structure and did not materially affect its external appearance. It also argued that the block-making process did not materially change the site’s use, but the Supreme Court said that issue was outside the certified question on appeal.

The judgment said an extension could be an alteration in the ordinary sense of a change, but that did not make it exempt. For the exemption, an improvement had to relate to the structure’s internal use and function and result in no externally noticeable difference or only an insignificant one. The Court rejected an interpretation under which works could qualify chiefly because of their purpose and visual effect, regardless of their scale or relationship to the existing structure.

The Court concluded that the High Court had interpreted section 4(1)(h) incorrectly and that an extension did not come within the exemption. It allowed the Board’s appeal. The judgment does not determine whether block-making was a material change of use, nor does it itself grant planning permission or make a criminal finding.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review