The High Court quashed An Bord Pleanála’s decision that alterations to the sanctuary of the Church of St Peter and St Paul in Balbriggan were exempt development, after the Board had found the works materially affected the character of the protected structure.
In a judgment delivered on 3 July 2007, Mr Justice John Edwards ordered that the applicant’s referral be remitted to the Board for a fresh decision in accordance with the court’s ruling. The court did not decide whether the works were exempt development. That question remained for the planning authority and the Board to determine under the law as interpreted in the judgment.
The dispute concerned interior changes including moving the sanctuary forward into the nave, relocating the baptismal font, removing pews and altar rails, and installing a tabernacle, new celebrant seating and lighting. The works had been carried out without planning permission. The church is a protected structure and is regularly used for public worship.
Fionuala Sherwin challenged the Board’s April 2006 decision on the basis that, having found the works materially affected the church’s character, it could not lawfully classify them as exempt. The Board argued that the relevant provisions had to be read together and required it to respect liturgical requirements when deciding whether the works were exempt.
Mr Justice Edwards held that section 57(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 allowed works to a protected structure to be exempt only if they would not materially affect the character of the structure or a relevant element. Liturgical requirements and ministerial guidelines were relevant to the assessment of material effect, he said. But once the Board had decided that the works materially affected the church’s character, it had to apply that statutory limit.
The judge also ruled that the 2004 ministerial guidelines were incorrect insofar as they suggested that works could materially affect a protected structure’s character yet remain exempt because they were required by liturgy. Guidance could not change or add to the legislation.
The order did not determine the status of a separate declaration previously issued by Fingal County Council to the church’s owners and occupiers. The judge said it was for the planning authority to consider whether to review that declaration. Any such review would not affect works already carried out in reliance on it.