The High Court has set aside An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for a proposed rural home and snail farming business in Daars North, County Kildare, finding that the Board did not explain its reasons adequately.
Mr Justice Garrett Simons ruled on 11 July 2019 that the Board’s decision, read alongside the inspector’s report, fell short of the reasoning required by section 34(10) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The court remitted the planning appeal to the Board for reconsideration in its entirety.
Aidan and Loretta Damer sought permission for a one-and-a-half-storey house, a domestic garage, agricultural buildings, a polytunnel and netting for a heliculture business. Their plan proposed producing snail meat, snail egg caviar and snail slime products. The judgment said the business was projected to have two full-time employees in its first year, with additional seasonal farmhands.
The dispute concerned Kildare County Development Plan criteria for one-off rural homes. The applicants relied on a provision for people committed to operating a full-time business from their proposed home, where the business would benefit the rural community and be intrinsically linked to a rural location. An Bord Pleanála refused permission in March 2018, saying a “compelling location-dependent need” for a home at the site had not been demonstrated.
The judge said the Board stated that conclusion without explaining its rationale. It was therefore unclear whether the Board considered snail farming could be carried out outside rural areas, or whether it required the business to be suited to that particular site. The inspector’s report also gave conclusions without explaining them and referred to the business not being “resource tied” to the location, a criterion the judge said did not appear in the development plan.
The Board’s counsel argued in court that the applicants had to show the specific project required the specific location. The judge said the Board’s reasoning should be evident from its decision and the inspector’s report, rather than supplied through legal submissions. Because the rationale was unclear, the court could not determine whether the applicants’ other challenges to the Board’s interpretation of the development plan were well founded.
The order set aside the Board’s refusal and returned the appeal for a fresh decision. The judge said the Board should reconsider the matter as a whole; the purpose was not to add reasons retrospectively. The judgment did not grant planning permission. The Board may arrange a further report, and its new decision may grant or refuse permission, but must meet the statutory requirement to state its main reasons and considerations.