The High Court has refused Navan Co-Ownership’s application to quash An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for a cinema complex in Navan, County Meath.
In a judgment delivered on 12 April 2016, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern found that the Board had correctly interpreted the Navan Development Plan 2009–2015. He concluded that its reasons for refusing permission were consistent with the plan and based on proper planning and sustainable development.
The application concerned the Board’s decision of 30 July 2015, which refused permission after five third-party appeals against Meath County Council’s earlier decision to grant permission, subject to 19 conditions. The Board cited the site’s distance from the established town centre, poor accessibility and reliance on cars. It also considered the proposal premature in the planned, phased expansion of the town centre and in light of its relationship with a proposed central railway station.
Navan Co-Ownership argued that the inspector and Board had misread the development plan, particularly its provisions for land zoned B1, described as “Commercial / Town Centre”. It challenged the conclusion that the proposed development was premature and argued that irrelevant considerations had been taken into account while relevant matters were overlooked.
The Board argued that the B1 lands included both the existing town centre and an expansion area, and that a development in the expansion area could conflict with the policy of protecting the established centre. The judgment records that the site was in the expansion area, was remote from the existing centre and could effectively only be accessed by motor vehicles.
Justice McGovern said the plan, read as a whole, sought to protect the existing town centre and provide for orderly expansion into B1 lands, with connections between the existing centre and expansion areas. Although the proposed railway station had become a long-term aspiration, the plan still referred to it and its relationship with the expansion area. The Board was therefore entitled to consider the station in assessing whether the proposal was premature.
The judge found no misinterpretation of the plan and no unreasonableness or irrationality sufficient to justify judicial review. He refused the application for certiorari. The judgment did not grant or refuse planning permission itself; it left the Board’s refusal in place.