The High Court has stayed Peter Sweetman’s judicial review of Clare County Council’s permission for coastal erosion management works at Carrowmore Dunes, pending An Bord Pleanála’s decision on appeals against the permission. It also vacated the earlier stay that had prevented the Board from considering those appeals.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Binchy on 31 July 2018, concerns the sequence of proceedings, not whether the Council’s permission was lawful or whether the proposed works should proceed. The judge did not determine the substantive judicial review or the planning appeals.
TIGL Ireland Enterprises Limited applied in 2006 for permission to build two protective structures between its golf links and White Strand, near Doonbeg, at the northern and southern ends of the beach. The Council notified TIGL of its decision to grant permission on 21 December 2017. Five third parties appealed to the Board, including Sweetman.
Sweetman argued that the Council had failed to carry out a lawful environmental impact assessment and appropriate assessment under European environmental law, and had not adequately explained its decision. He said the Board could not determine whether the Council’s decision was lawful, so the judicial review should continue. The Council and TIGL disputed his claims. They said the Board would consider the application afresh, carry out its own assessments and could address the alleged errors.
The judge noted that the Council’s planner had carried out an appropriate assessment, contrary to Sweetman’s stated understanding that none was available. The judgment records that Sweetman had not seen the decision’s schedules setting out the Council’s reasons on the environmental impact and appropriate assessments. The court did not rule on the adequacy of those assessments. It also noted that the Council had not identified where the decision explained its departure from its inspector’s recommendations; the judge said that issue might require determination at a full hearing.
Applying the principles in earlier cases on alternative remedies, the judge found that the Board’s appeal process was adequate in this case. Under the statutory process, the Board would determine the application as if it had been made to it in the first instance, and its decision would annul the Council’s decision. The judge found no evidence that the Council’s decision would disadvantage Sweetman on appeal, or that the alleged defects would taint the Board’s process or deprive him of a meaningful first stage.
The court said Sweetman had identified no prejudice from allowing the appeal to proceed, while TIGL faced potential damage to its property and possible related losses to employment and tourism if coastal works were delayed. The order stays the judicial review until the Board decides the appeals and removes the stay on the Board’s consideration of them.