The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s decision that a tractor shed on a farm in Co. Sligo was not exempt from planning permission, ruling that the Board applied the wrong legal test. The matter was remitted to the Board for further consideration.
In a judgment delivered on 15 May 2013, Mr Justice Hogan said the Board had identified restricted sightlines and a traffic hazard at the farm’s access onto the N59, where the 100km/h speed limit applied. But Article 9(1)(a)(iii) of the Planning and Development Regulations required the Board to consider whether carrying out the development would endanger public safety by reason of a traffic hazard or obstruction of road users.
The court found that the Board’s decision rested on the existence of the hazard at the access point. It did not explain how constructing the shed would create or worsen that danger. The judge said the Board had asked itself the wrong question and applied the wrong test.
The shed consisted of a roof over two shipping containers, with a concrete block wall enclosing one end. It covered about 120 square metres and was intended to store a tractor. The Board had accepted that the structure generally came within a class of development that could be exempt, but concluded that the road-safety restriction applied.
A Board inspector had proposed reasoning that the larger storage area could intensify use of the access and increase accident risk. But the Board deleted that reasoning from its final order. The judge said the changes showed that the Board had disavowed the proposed connection between the shed and future vehicle use of the access.
The judgment also rejected the farmer’s separate argument that the shed was exempt under the general agricultural exemption in section 4(1)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The judge held that this exemption covered use of land or buildings for agriculture, not the construction of a new agricultural structure.
The court did not decide that the shed was exempt. It quashed the Board’s 23 November 2011 decision and proposed remitting the matter to the Board under Order 84, rule 27(4), for further consideration of the Article 9 question.