The High Court found that An Bord Pleanála failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting its inspector’s recommendation to grant planning permission for an agricultural shed and related works at Rinville West, Oranmore, County Galway. The court proposed an order quashing the Board’s refusal, with ancillary matters, including costs, still to be addressed.
In a judgment delivered on 22 March 2024, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley ruled that the Board’s decision of 19 May 2020 did not meet the statutory requirement to state why it differed from its inspector. The inspector, Bríd Maxwell, had recommended granting permission subject to eight conditions. The Board refused the application, saying the proposal had not overcome its previous reason for refusal.
The applicant, Rachel Konisberry, sought judicial review of that refusal. Her 2020 application covered partial demolition of an existing agricultural shed, retention and completion of the remainder, retention and widening of an access road, landscaping and associated works. It followed earlier refusals in 2017 and 2019. The 2020 proposal was redesigned and smaller than the earlier scheme.
The Board’s stated concerns included the shed’s scale, mass and bulk, its position on elevated ground in a high-sensitivity rural landscape, effects on visual and residential amenities, interference with landscape character and the prospect of setting an undesirable precedent. The judge said those points did not explain why the Board rejected the inspector’s assessment that the revised design, landscaping and other mitigation measures made the development acceptable subject to conditions.
The judgment said the Board’s reference to its previous refusal was a conclusion rather than an explanation. It also left unclear whether that reference meant the 2017 or 2019 decision. The court found that the Board had not meaningfully engaged with the inspector’s reasoning, including her assessment of visual impact, and had not complied with section 34(10) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 or established case law on reasons.
The court did not determine that planning permission should be granted. It proposed to quash the Board’s refusal and listed the matter for 10 April 2024 to address further consequential matters, including costs.