The High Court has refused Donal Kenny’s application to quash An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for a proposed district centre at Monksland, Athlone West.
In a judgment delivered on 12 March 2020, Mr Justice MacGrath found that the Board had material before it to support its decision and that its planning judgments were not irrational. He also rejected the claim that the Board acted unlawfully by not expressly addressing Mr Kenny’s request to consider granting permission under section 37(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The application was Mr Kenny’s third for a district centre on the site. Roscommon County Council refused the 2016 proposal, and the Board dismissed his appeal in January 2017. The proposal included a discount food store, five retail outlets, a consulting room, a therapy suite, six apartments, two offices, parking and associated works.
The Board gave three reasons for refusal. It said the commercial and retail scale conflicted with the 2016–2022 Monksland/Bellanamullia Local Area Plan, which zoned the site for new residential development and aimed to consolidate commercial activity around a district centre elsewhere in the plan area. It also found the retail proposal unjustified in light of vacancies in Monksland and potentially damaging to Athlone town centre. The third reason concerned public open space and the development’s effect on visual and residential amenity.
Kenny argued that the refusal was irrational because the plan supported a district centre nearby while rejecting his site, which had previously been zoned for that use. He also said the Board should have considered whether it could grant permission despite the zoning conflict. The Board argued that zoning did not guarantee permission and that the current plan and retail strategy supported its decision.
The judge found no necessary contradiction between the reasons: a development may be refused on planning grounds even where that type of use is allowed in principle by zoning. He noted the inspector’s report addressed the planning history, the applicable plans and the retail concerns, including the absence of a retail impact assessment and no evidence that vacancy rates had substantially changed.
On section 37(2), the court said the provision’s potential use arose only if the Board considered the development consistent with proper planning and sustainable development despite a material plan conflict. Since the Board had concluded that it was not, the request did not create a legal duty to consider that power or give reasons for declining to use it. The court left unresolved whether section 37(2) applies to a local area plan, as that question was unnecessary to decide.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The court did not grant an order quashing the Board’s refusal.