The High Court has granted Thomas Grealish leave to seek judicial review of An Bord Pleanála’s 2003 refusal of permission to retain a prismatic advertising sign at 171 Drimnagh Road, Dublin. The ruling allows only specified grounds to proceed; it does not decide whether the refusal was invalid or should be quashed.
The sign, on the building’s gable facing Balfe Road, measured 6.5m by 3.5m. Dublin City Council refused retention permission in March 2003, saying the sign was too large, did not integrate with the building and would add visual clutter and seriously harm the area’s visual amenities.
An Bord Pleanála refused the appeal in August 2003, despite its inspector recommending permission for a smaller sign. The Board said the proposed reduction would not resolve its concerns about the sign’s scale and integration with the building.
Earlier permissions had allowed versions of the sign for limited periods. In 1990 the Board permitted a tri-vision sign subject to restrictions on how often its messages could change and a removal deadline. In 1997 it granted permission for five years, with slower message changes, and said the area’s amenities could be reviewed when that period ended.
Mr Grealish argued that the Board had departed from those earlier decisions without adequate reasons. He also claimed that the earlier permissions supported a legitimate expectation of renewed permission and that principles of res judicata or estoppel prevented the Board from refusing it.
Justice Laffoy found that the Board had explained why it rejected the inspector’s recommendation: it considered that reducing the sign’s size would not overcome its stated concerns. But she said a substantial ground existed to argue that the Board should have explained its starkly different conclusion from the 1990 and 1997 decisions about the sign’s effect on visual amenities. The judge said the Board was entitled to reach a different conclusion, but the unusual circumstances made an explanation necessary to assess the 2003 decision under judicial review standards.
The judge rejected the res judicata and estoppel grounds as unsustainable. The earlier permissions were time-limited and did not determine whether a new permission should be granted for a later period. She also rejected the legitimate expectation argument: the earlier decisions did not promise that permission would be renewed, even if circumstances remained unchanged.
Leave was granted to seek certiorari and relief relating to the reasons for the 2003 decision, on specified grounds that included the alleged failure to explain the departure from earlier decisions and alleged unreasonableness or irrationality. The court did not grant leave on the legitimate expectation ground or the estoppel allegation.