The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s September 2023 refusal of planning permission for Shannon LNG Limited’s proposed Shannon Technology and Energy Park in Co Kerry, finding that the board made a legal error in its assessment of policy material.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Humphreys on 30 September 2024, upheld one ground of the company’s judicial review. The board had listed a departmental consultation document containing an initial technical analysis of energy security under “national policy”, although it was not national policy. The court also found that the analysis featured in the inspector’s reasoning for recommending refusal of the LNG facilities, so the error was not an immaterial aside.
The board’s decision had refused permission for the entire project, departing from its inspector’s recommendation to refuse the proposed floating LNG storage and regasification unit, jetty and onshore receiving facilities, but grant permission for the power plant, battery storage system and related works. The board cited the Government’s 2021 policy statement on fracked gas, the unfinished energy security review and the project’s integrated design in refusing permission.
Shannon LNG argued, among other things, that the board treated the 2021 policy as binding and relied improperly on draft technical material. The board disputed that it had relied on the analysis as a substantive basis for refusal. The court upheld the challenge to the classification and use of the consultation material. It did not rule on the remaining grounds, including the wider challenges to the board’s decision and the 2021 policy statement. It also recorded that the company had withdrawn one ground concerning the inspector’s recommendation.
The court ordered certiorari, quashing the board’s decision, and directed that the application be returned to the board for reconsideration and decision according to law. The judgment did not grant planning permission or determine whether the project should be approved. The court’s order also provided for the applicant’s costs against the board, with no costs order for or against the other respondents.
In a postscript, the judgment records that the parties later agreed to amend the order. On 24 March 2025, the court noted that its finding on the consultation material was fact-specific and had no more general precedential value. The board’s leave-to-appeal application was struck out by consent, with no costs order. The earlier order quashing the refusal and remitting the application was perfected.