The High Court has refused Eco Advocacy CLG leave to appeal the dismissal of its challenge to planning permission for 320 homes at Charterschool Land, Manorlands, in Trim, Co Meath. The court also made no order as to costs, including the costs of the appeal and costs applications.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Humphreys on 18 December 2023, dealt with the remaining applications after the judicial review proceedings had been dismissed in full in an earlier judgment. The challenge concerned permission granted by An Bord Pleanála in October 2020 under the strategic housing development procedure.
Eco Advocacy proposed six questions of law, arguing they raised issues of exceptional public importance. They concerned pleading requirements, whether arguments could be developed at a hearing, reasons for environmental screening decisions, responses to submissions during appropriate assessment screening, and how to distinguish standard design features from mitigation measures.
The judge rejected the application, describing it as without merit. He said the proposed questions either raised no legal uncertainty, had been answered by the Court of Justice of the European Union, or sought to introduce points that had not been pleaded. The CJEU had ruled on questions referred to it in June 2023, after which the High Court dismissed the remaining challenge.
The case was a judicial review of the board’s decision to grant permission for the development, which is near the River Boyne and River Blackwater protected sites. The project design included underground tanks and flow controls to manage surface water, with discharge to a stream about 100 metres south of the site. The CJEU’s judgment addressed whether certain project features could be considered in screening; the High Court said the applicant’s proposed appeal question about classifying those features raised a new issue without a basis in the pleadings or evidence.
The notice party, Keegan Land Holdings Limited, had sought costs, including on the basis that parts of the case were frivolous or vexatious. The judge found the evidence did not establish vexatious proceedings. He said the case before the CJEU was not frivolous, and gave Eco Advocacy the benefit of the doubt over its conduct after that judgment, while criticising aspects of its arguments.
The court declined to award costs, citing the circumstances of the case and the need to avoid further delay and uncertainty. Its order refused leave to appeal and directed that the dismissal and costs orders be perfected forthwith. The judgment does not revisit the planning permission on its merits; it addresses leave to appeal and costs after the challenge had already been dismissed.