The High Court has refused John Conway leave to challenge An Bord Pleanála’s refusal to approve Dublin City Council’s proposed College Green civic plaza and associated traffic works, ruling that he did not have standing to bring the case.
Mr Justice David Barniville delivered the judgment on 16 July 2019. The court considered standing as a preliminary issue during Conway’s application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings. It did not decide the substantive grounds challenging the Board’s planning decision.
The Council applied to the Board for approval in May 2017. After an inspector recommended refusal, the Board refused approval in October 2018, citing concerns about traffic analysis, likely effects on bus transport, capacity on the quays and the ability of footpaths there to accommodate additional pedestrians. The Board said the proposal was acceptable in principle and would improve the public realm, but found that its impacts would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development.
Conway, who lives in Dundalk, had not taken part in the planning process, though he knew of the Council’s application. He told the court he had expected it to be approved and became concerned after the refusal that public resources might be wasted if the Council had to apply again. He described himself as an environmental activist and a director of strategy for the Louth Environmental Group. The Council did not challenge the Board’s decision and did not participate in Conway’s proceedings.
The judge found that Conway had no close physical connection to College Green and had not identified a particular interest in its amenity that the refusal might impair. The decision meant the proposed development could not proceed unless the Council made a further application and secured approval. The judge also noted that the Council was the party directly affected by the refusal, but had chosen not to challenge it.
The court held that Conway lacked a “sufficient interest” under Irish standing rules. It further concluded that EU law, including the requirement for wide access to justice under the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, did not require a different interpretation of those rules. The judgment treated his non-participation as one factor among several, and said his expectation that the Council would obtain approval was not a cogent explanation for not participating.
The judge refused Conway’s request for a preliminary reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, saying he was not in doubt about the scope of EU law. Because Conway lacked standing, the court refused leave to bring the judicial review proceedings.