The High Court has refused O’Mahony Developments Limited leave to seek judicial review of An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for 40 homes at Glounthaune, Co. Cork.
In a judgment delivered on 27 November 2015, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the company had not shown substantial grounds for challenging the board’s decision. The ruling was made at the leave stage; the court did not proceed to a substantive judicial review hearing.
The company owns a 6.9-hectare site zoned for residential development. It had received permission in 2008 for 248 homes on the site. In December 2014, it applied for permission for 40 units on a 2.37-hectare portion. Its application included an indicative plan showing an intention to develop 148 units across the wider holding. Cork County Council granted permission, but third parties appealed and the board refused it in September 2015.
The board gave five reasons: the site was isolated from Glounthaune village; access from a road with an 80 km/h speed limit raised safety concerns; the proposal formed part of a wider scheme exceeding a 40-unit local plan limit; the design did not meet the Urban Design Manual’s criteria; and the proposed boundary treatment did not adequately address mature trees, historic features and the site’s character.
The company argued that the board had misread the local plan’s 40-unit limit, failed to account for the site being inside the village boundary, placed too much weight on national planning guidelines and failed to explain its departure from the 2008 permission. The judge rejected those submissions at the leave stage. He said the board could reasonably treat the 40-home application as part of a larger scheme, and that being inside the mapped boundary or having residential zoning did not establish an entitlement to the proposed development.
The judge also found it reasonable for the board to consider the 2009 residential development guidelines when assessing an individual application. He said the board had given adequate general reasons for taking a different view from 2008, including the guidelines and its assessment of traffic safety. He noted that the design and boundary-treatment grounds were not seriously contested in oral argument and said they could independently defeat the challenge.
The court dismissed the application for leave. It said it would hear the applicant further on any consequential matters.