The High Court refused to quash An Bord Pleanála decisions that rejected retention permission for a bar and nightclub at West Wood Club’s leisure centre in Fairview, Dublin, and allowed only some of the other works on the site to remain.
Mr Justice Hedigan delivered judgment on 26 January 2010 in a judicial review taken by West Wood Club Limited against An Bord Pleanála, with Dublin City Council as notice party. The case proceeded as a “telescoped hearing”, combining the application for leave to seek judicial review with the substantive grounds.
The dispute concerned the club’s “Bar Code” venue, which began operating in 2002. In 2004, An Bord Pleanála had determined that the bar use was not exempted development and amounted to a material change of use. After enforcement proceedings began, the club applied in December 2007 to retain the use and various works. The Council refused the use application. On appeal, An Bord Pleanála refused retention permission for the use and granted permission for only some of the works.
The Board’s September 2008 reasons included the bar’s scale, separate entrances and operating hours, which it considered incompatible with an ancillary leisure-centre use and the site’s Z9 zoning objective. It also cited concerns about overdevelopment, access, traffic, visual amenity and safety for particular works.
The club argued, among other things, that the Board wrongly treated all alcohol service as unauthorised, relied on its earlier 2004 decision, breached fair procedures and failed to give adequate reasons. The judge found the evidence showed the club sought permission for a substantial late-opening bar and disco serving the general public, rather than a limited bar ancillary to the leisure centre. He said the Board had considered the application presented to it and had not ruled out a more limited ancillary bar use.
The court also found that the Board had carried out a fresh assessment of the retention application, while properly taking the earlier decision into account as part of the site’s planning history. It held that third-party submissions did not raise new issues requiring circulation to the club, and that the Board’s reasons were sufficient. The court refused leave on the other grounds, including challenges concerning the development plan, the Board’s treatment of other works and pre-planning consultations.
The judge granted leave on three grounds—an alleged false assumption, reliance on the earlier decision and inadequate reasons—but, after examining them substantively, refused the relief sought. The judgment did not quash the Board’s decisions or remit the appeals.