The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by James and Patrick Harten to An Bord Pleanála’s 2013 grant of planning permission for a municipal sewage-sludge composting facility at Carnagh Upper, County Cavan. The court did not quash the permission.
The proposal involved changing the use of an existing mushroom-composting facility and associated works. Cavan County Council granted permission in February 2013. On appeal, the planning board granted permission in August 2013, subject to 13 conditions.
A board inspector had recommended refusal, citing concerns including flood risk, the condition and capacity of the local road, effects on nearby homes, and gaps in information about the sludge and land for spreading the finished material. The board differed on four areas: flooding, traffic, residential amenities and potential serious environmental effects.
The Hartens argued that the board had not adequately explained its decision to depart from the inspector’s recommendation, especially on traffic and flooding. They also challenged whether the board had carried out and recorded an environmental impact assessment, whether a full second-stage appropriate assessment was required for European conservation sites, and whether some matters could lawfully be left to later agreement through conditions.
The court found that the board’s reasons, read with its conditions and the material before it, were clear enough to show that it had considered the relevant issues. It said the board was entitled to reach a different conclusion from the inspector and that the evidence did not meet the legal threshold for finding its decision unreasonable or irrational.
It also accepted that the board had completed an environmental impact assessment. On appropriate assessment, the judgment noted that the board’s decision document incorrectly said a full assessment had been completed. The court found that the board had in fact screened the proposal and decided a full second-stage assessment was not required. It treated the wording as an error of form, not substance, and concluded that the screening decision was supported by material before the board and complied with the applicable process.
The court further rejected the challenge to conditions that left technical details for agreement with the planning authority, finding that no specific condition had been impugned and that the relevant details could lawfully be addressed that way. It refused the application in full.