Judgment: 2025-05-19 · Court archive

High Court quashes permission for 201-apartment scheme beside Southgate Centre in Drogheda

High Court, Planning and Environment · [2025] IEHC 276

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Protect East Meath Limited (Applicant)
  • An Bord Pleanála (Respondent)
  • Rockmill Limited
What

High Court quashes permission for 201-apartment scheme beside Southgate Centre in Drogheda

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Southgate Centre
  • Meath
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 3 November 2021

    The timing became central to the case brought by Protect East Meath Limited. When the application was lodged, the Meath County Development Plan 2013-2019 remained in force. A new 2021-2027 plan was adopted in September and came into effect on 3 November 2021, before the Board granted permission later that month.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has quashed planning permission for a 201-apartment development beside the Southgate Centre in Drogheda after finding that An Bord Pleanála failed to properly apply Meath’s current development plan.

The High Court has quashed planning permission for a 201-apartment development beside the Southgate Centre in Drogheda after finding that An Bord Pleanála failed to properly apply Meath’s current development plan.

Rockmill Limited applied in August 2021 for the strategic housing development on a 1.74-hectare site. The proposal comprised 201 apartments in five five-storey blocks, with 181 car parking spaces.

The timing became central to the case brought by Protect East Meath Limited. When the application was lodged, the Meath County Development Plan 2013-2019 remained in force. A new 2021-2027 plan was adopted in September and came into effect on 3 November 2021, before the Board granted permission later that month.

Ms Justice Emily Farrell held that the Board was required to decide the application under the new plan.

Under that plan, the normal parking calculation for 201 apartments was 452 spaces before any permitted reduction. The Board inspector instead worked from a baseline of 402 spaces, drawn from an earlier draft plan. The judge found that this error undermined the Board’s subsequent exercise of discretion in approving only 181 spaces.

The court also found a separate material contravention concerning accessible parking. The permission provided six accessible spaces, while the development plan required at least nine. The Board had not identified or justified that departure under the statutory procedure for granting permission in material contravention of a development plan.

A challenge concerning electric-vehicle infrastructure was partly established, but the resulting contravention was not considered material. The proposed 300 bicycle spaces also fell below the plan’s requirement of 465, although a condition required the eventual number to be increased to comply with the plan.

The judge additionally expressed the provisional view that, once the new plan came into force, the Board could not lawfully grant a materially contravening SHD permission without meaningful public participation on those departures.

The planning permission was quashed. Protect East Meath was provisionally awarded its costs against An Bord Pleanála, subject to any further submissions.

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