The High Court has refused Save Cork City Community Association CLG leave to appeal a judgment concerning environmental assessment requirements for local-authority works. The application sought leave under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
In the earlier judgment, the court dismissed the association’s application to quash An Bord Pleanála’s decision and granted a declaration. One relief against the State had been adjourned with liberty to re-enter. The November 2021 hearing concerned only permission to appeal that judgment.
The association proposed three questions of exceptional public importance. They concerned whether the court applied the correct test for assessing the flood-relief works alongside wider works; whether environmental impact assessment screening jurisdiction could be read into section 177AE(15); and whether a respondent could develop an argument during oral submissions when it had not been pleaded or relied on in the inspector’s report or written submissions.
Humphreys J found the first question vague and said the association had not shown why the earlier conclusion about the relationship between the project and wider works was legally uncertain. He referred to the inspector’s report describing the development as a stand-alone project that was functionally and legally independent of the wider masterplan. He also rejected the claim that the practical consequences of the association’s proposed interpretation established uncertainty warranting an appeal.
The judge said the second question was specific enough in form, but the association had not explained how the earlier statutory interpretation could be wrong. He noted that the earlier judgment had not decided what would happen if the board concluded an environmental impact assessment report should have been submitted; that situation did not arise in this case.
On the third question, the judge said the court must seek the correct interpretation of a statute and that respondents could develop reasons for denying an applicant’s claims in submissions. He also found that the State had expressly referred to section 177AE(15) in its statement of opposition. The association had not sought an adjournment to address the point, he said.
The court refused leave to appeal. It did not need to decide the public-interest limb of the leave test. The refusal did not alter the earlier judgment’s disposition.