The High Court has refused a neighbour’s challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s decision to grant permission for a single-storey extension to a home near Naas, finding that he had not established a reviewable issue with the decision.
In a judgment delivered on 6 February 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger rejected Peter Murphy’s application for judicial review. She directed that the case return on 15 February to hear the parties on final orders, including costs. The judgment does not record what final orders were subsequently made.
Kildare County Council granted planning permission to Fiona Cleary and Tony O’Brien on 21 March 2022 for the demolition of part of an existing dwelling and construction of a side extension. Murphy, who lives on an adjoining property, appealed. After reviewing submissions and an inspector’s report, the Board granted permission on 9 August 2022.
Murphy advanced 17 grounds in his statement of grounds, later grouped into four themes: views, the extension’s location, sunlight and his claim that his home was passive solar, and green infrastructure and natural heritage. He argued that the extension would harm his outlook and reduce sunlight, and that the Board should have required ecological surveys, including in light of his claim that bats were present.
The Board argued that the case improperly challenged the planning merits and that the evidence supported its conclusions. The judge said judicial review was not an opportunity to substitute a court’s planning judgment for the Board’s. She found that the inspector had considered the issues Murphy raised and that the Board’s conclusions were supported by evidence, including the extension’s one-storey height, the shared boundary wall and the separation between the properties.
The inspector had found there would be no significant overshadowing, relying on a site visit and technical drawings. The judge noted that the inspector mistakenly referred to solar panels at Murphy’s home, where none were present, but said she understood how the misunderstanding arose from Murphy’s reliance on his description of the house as passive solar. She found no objective definition or supporting evidence that established a protected category for the home or showed how its design reduced energy use.
The judge also found that Murphy’s claims about bat roosts and ecological impacts lacked evidence before the Board. She said his account of seeing two bats on his own property the previous year, even if accepted, did not establish adverse impact or potential disturbance from the extension. She concluded that the inspector’s report and other documents gave adequate reasons for the Board’s decision.