The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by Gillian Brophy and David Nulty to An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for a home and horticultural business at a site in Glenasmole, near Tallaght.
In a judgment delivered on 3 July 2015, Ms Justice Baker rejected the applicants’ argument that the Board had misinterpreted the development plan by requiring them to show a need to live beside the proposed business. The court held that the Board was entitled to apply the plan’s stricter test for a genuine housing need in the area.
The applicants sought to build a dwelling and structures for a horticultural business on their 0.996-hectare site at Glassmucky Brakes. South Dublin County Council refused permission in January 2013, and the Board upheld that refusal on appeal in June 2013. Both decisions found that the applicants had not demonstrated that the business required them to live at that location.
The applicants argued that the Board had applied a narrower test than the development plan, which referred to a genuine need for housing “in that particular area”. They said the Board should have considered their wider connection to the area and guidance on rural housing needs. The Board argued that the development plan was the primary guide and that the relevant question was whether there was a need to live beside the horticultural business.
The court explained that planning authorities and the Board must have regard to ministerial guidelines, but need not follow them slavishly. Where general guidance conflicts with a specific development-plan policy, the policy prevails, the judge said. She noted that the plan’s criteria were cumulative and that the Board had found the applicants met three of four criteria, but had not established the required housing need.
The inspector’s report had accepted the applicants’ local ties and genuine commitment to the proposed business, and found no environmental capacity issue. But it concluded that their existing dwelling, about 6.5km away by road, was not materially less favourable to the business than a home on the site. Building a house there could also add substantially to start-up costs.
The court also rejected the claim that the Board’s decision was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence. It found that the Board had extensive reports and submissions before it, including a business plan, and that the inspector had engaged fully with the application.
The court refused the judicial review application. It did not grant planning permission or overturn the Board’s refusal.