The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by Wexele to An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for a mixed-use development at Sandyford Business Estate, finding that the Board was entitled to conclude the scheme was premature while significant infrastructure constraints remained unresolved.
The judgment, delivered by O’Neill J. on 19 March 2010, followed a “telescoped hearing”, combining the application for leave with the substantive arguments. The court granted leave on the prematurity ground, then rejected that ground after hearing it fully. It refused leave on the other grounds and said that, even if leave had been granted on them, it would have rejected the applicant’s case. The court refused all relief sought.
Wexele had sought to quash the Board’s 8 April 2008 decision refusing permission and to have the planning appeal reconsidered. The proposed development comprised 259 apartments, 15 live-work units, commercial space and other facilities on a site of about 0.67 hectares. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council had granted permission in July 2005, subject to conditions, but the Board later refused permission after appeals and further information requests.
The Board’s reasons cited constraints involving roads, public transport, water and drainage, social infrastructure and recreation facilities. It said the development would conflict with the area’s employment zoning and be premature, having regard to existing and prospective deficiencies. The applicant argued that the development plan supported high-density residential development and that the council’s studies showed infrastructure could accommodate developments already permitted or under appeal. It also challenged the adequacy of the Board’s reasons and complained of delay.
The court held that the record showed no formulated plans, allocated funding or timetable for the necessary infrastructure works as of February 2008. It said there was therefore no clear picture of when or how the constraints would cease, and the Board was entitled to conclude that the proposal was premature. The court distinguished the case from an earlier decision involving development not contemplated by the relevant plan.
On the development-plan challenge, the judge found that the Board had not ruled the scheme inherently inconsistent with the plan. Its concern was that the development, if carried out without addressing infrastructure deficits, would undermine the zoning objective. The applicant had not established substantial grounds of legal misinterpretation.
The court also found no evidence that the Board had made the alleged material factual error. It held that the Board’s stated reasons were sufficient, including its explanation for departing from the inspector’s recommendation to grant permission. The court found no substantial grounds on delay, concluding that the time taken was necessary for a fair consideration of the complex appeal.