The High Court has granted judicial review of an An Bord Pleanála condition attached to retention permission for works at Weston Aerodrome, finding that the Board did not give adequate reasons for imposing it. The court remitted the matter to the Board for reconsideration under the applicable law.
Weston, a company that owns and operates a licensed aerodrome at Weston Aerodrome, Leixlip, sought to retain and alter parts of an office and clubhouse, hangar and car park. The works included relocating the control tower and navigational equipment, changing internal arrangements for security, and retaining folding doors at the hangar.
South Dublin County Council granted retention permission in June 2005. After a third-party appeal by Combined Action on Weston Aerodrome, the Board granted permission in December 2005, subject to a condition that development described in Class 32 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 could not be carried out on the site without prior planning permission. The Board’s stated reason was “in the interest of orderly development”.
Weston argued that the condition unlawfully removed an exemption available to aerodrome licence holders, including for certain safety and security works. It also argued that the Board had failed to give adequate reasons and that the condition was disproportionate.
The court rejected the challenge to the Board’s authority. It concluded that the statutory power to impose conditions on a retention permission could extend to exempted development, provided the condition was rationally connected to proper planning and sustainable development. The court did not find that the condition had been imposed for an improper purpose.
On reasons, the court held that this condition was outside the categories specifically listed in the Act and that, in the circumstances, the Board had an enhanced obligation to explain its rationale. The phrase “in the interest of orderly development” did not suffice. The court noted that the record included a council report referring to the applicant’s past failure to comply, while the inspector described the condition as reasonable in the context of a retention application. Although possible explanations were raised in submissions, the Board had not stated them as its reasons. The court found the explanation inadequate to dispel reasonable doubt about the condition’s legal basis or purpose.
The court did not decide the proportionality or Convention rights arguments. It said those questions were not appropriate for determination in light of its finding on the reasons challenge. The order was confined to judicial review on that ground and remittal to the Board; the court did not direct what decision the Board should make on reconsideration.