The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s grant of planning permission for the refurbishment of a one-bedroom cottage near the coast at Ballyconneely, Co Galway.
In a judgment delivered on 12 November 2012, Ms Justice Iseult O’Malley rejected the relief sought by Sean Nee, who owns property beside the site and had objected to the development. The permission allows the cottage to be restored to its original form, subject to conditions including conservation oversight, wastewater controls and restrictions on further development without planning permission.
The Council had refused permission in March 2010, citing rural housing policy, water supply, road safety and wastewater concerns. An Bord Pleanála later granted permission on appeal. The Board treated the proposal as refurbishment of a dwelling with an established residential use, despite the cottage’s ruinous condition. Its inspector had recommended refusal, taking the view that the original dwelling no longer existed and that the proposal should be assessed as a new house.
Mr Nee argued that the Council had refused permission because the proposal materially contravened the County Development Plan, limiting the Board’s power to grant permission under section 37(2) of the Planning and Development Act. The judge found that the Council had not stated that the contravention was material. She concluded that its refusal was not on that ground, so section 37(2) did not apply.
The judge also rejected the arguments that the Board had failed to explain its departure from the inspector’s recommendation or acted unreasonably. She said the Board’s reasons, read with its conditions, adequately explained its conclusions on the site’s residential use, landscape impact, road access and wastewater system. The Board was entitled to differ from the inspector where relevant material supported its decision.
On the Habitats Directive claim, the court noted that the site was about 525 metres from the Slyne Head candidate Special Area of Conservation. The judge held that an assessment was required only where there was reason to consider a likely significant effect. Given the scale and distance of the development, the inspector’s view and the lack of contrary evidence, the Board was entitled to conclude there was no such likelihood.
The ruling addressed the legality of the Board’s decision; it did not itself grant planning permission. The Board’s permission remained subject to its stated conditions.