The High Court has allowed applicants challenging planning permission for a development in Roscam to file a second amended statement of grounds, but excluded several proposed amendments that it considered new points rather than further particulars.
In a judgment delivered on 25 March 2024, Mr Justice Humphreys said the applicants’ explanation supported amendments that genuinely particularised existing claims. The court directed that the second amended statement be filed within seven days, subject to the exclusions set out in its order.
The case concerns permission granted by An Bord Pleanála on 28 October 2021 for a development proposed by Alber Developments Limited. The board had concluded that the project would not materially contravene the Galway City Development Plan on zoning, but would contravene it on plot ratio or density. It considered that contravention justified by government policy and ministerial guidelines. The applicants challenged the decision, and a hearing date had been fixed for 29 May 2024 when they sought to amend their already amended grounds.
The disputed changes concerned sub-ground 6 and ground 11.3. The judge accepted proposed wording under sub-ground 6 that he considered to rephrase or explain the existing point about a two-storey, cul-de-sac dominated form of development. He refused proposed sub-ground 6.4, which alleged that the board acted unreasonably if it reached any factual conclusion on the applicants’ submission, finding it went beyond particularisation.
On ground 11.3, concerning alleged failures in the assessment of environmental effects on bats, the judge allowed some additions that he considered explanations of existing claims. He excluded an allegation that the board failed to consider relevant material, a proposed discussion of the environmental impact assessment’s significance test and how it differed from the Habitats Directive test, and a proposed discussion of derogation licences. He said these introduced new points and the applicants had not said they were omitted through oversight. Other proposed additions were not objected to.
The judgment did not determine the underlying planning challenge or the merits of the applicants’ environmental allegations. Nor did the judge decide whether the amendments would cause irremediable prejudice. He noted that new fact-based issues could disrupt a hearing date by requiring further evidence, but said it was unnecessary to decide that issue in this application.
The existing statements of opposition were to be treated as responding to the amended claims, with respondents and the notice party given 21 days to amend their statements if they wished. Unless a party made a written legal submission within 14 days, the order was to be perfected on the basis of no order as to costs. The parties were directed to confirm a schedule of directions before the next mention, listed for 8 April 2024.