The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s 2019 grant of planning permission for a high-performance rowing training centre beside Poulaphouca Reservoir in Co Wicklow. Ms Justice Miriam O’Regan ruled that the Board’s conclusion that the project had no potential for adverse effects on the reservoir’s protected bird population was not sustainable on the material before it.
The judicial review concerned a proposed boathouse and associated facilities at Burgage, Moyle, Blessington. The reservoir is a Special Protection Area for greylag geese and lesser black-backed gulls. The applicant, Raymond O’Sullivan, challenged the permission granted to Rowing Ireland, with Wicklow County Council also named as a notice party.
The court focused on the Board inspector’s appropriate assessment. The inspector had concluded that the proposal would not increase activity on the lake and would not be used after dark, when geese roost. But the judgment noted that documents submitted with the planning application referred to more boats, possible growth in rowing, and a new boathouse with 11 storage bays compared with three in the existing facility. The material also recorded that rowing could affect birds and that geese had been observed roosting near the proposed boathouse location.
The judge found the inspector had not engaged with evidence before the Board suggesting that the number of rowers or boats could increase. In those circumstances, the conclusion that there was no potential for adverse impact was unsustainable and inconsistent with the applicable legal requirements for an appropriate assessment. The court held that this flaw entitled O’Sullivan to an order quashing the Board’s decision.
The judgment rejected or did not uphold other grounds argued in the case. The court was not satisfied that the Board had failed to consider the proposed Poulaphouca greenway, and found that a boathouse set back from the lake was not a “marina” requiring the environmental assessment argued for by the applicant. It also found no established breach concerning planning conditions that left specified matters for later agreement or required mitigation measures.
The ruling quashes the planning decision; it does not itself determine a new planning application or grant permission. The court gave directions for written submissions on costs, with any submissions due within 14 days of electronic delivery of the judgment and responses within a further 14 days. In the absence of a submission seeking costs within that period, there would be no order as to costs.