Judgment: 2009-03-27 · Court archive

High Court rejects challenge over Audley Cove embankment planning status

High Court · [2009] IEHC 230

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Michael Satke
  • An Bord Pleanála
  • Cork County Council
  • Mr Justice Hanna
What

High Court rejects challenge over Audley Cove embankment planning status

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Audley Cove
  • Ballydehob
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has rejected a challenge by landowner Michael Satke to an An Bord Pleanála ruling that an earth and stone embankment beside Audley Cove near Ballydehob, Co Cork, required planning permission.

The High Court has rejected a challenge by landowner Michael Satke to an An Bord Pleanála ruling that an earth and stone embankment beside Audley Cove near Ballydehob, Co Cork, required planning permission.

Mr Justice Hanna refused judicial review of the Board's November 2006 decision. He found that, although one of the Board's stated reasons was legally unsupported, two independent grounds remained sufficient to sustain its conclusion that the works were not exempted development.

Mr Satke owns land adjoining the small beach at Audley Cove. He constructed an earth and stone bank, about one metre high and wide, between the beach and a lagoon on his property. The judgment records that he did so to reduce potential liability arising from people entering his land.

Local representations complained that the embankment reduced car access and parking and affected an area used for hauling up and storing boats. Cork County Council referred the question to An Bord Pleanála under section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

A senior planning inspector recommended that the works were exempt. The Board disagreed. It concluded that the development interfered with the character of the landscape, enclosed land habitually used by the public and obstructed a public right of way.

Mr Satke argued that the Board had inadequate evidence, failed to explain its reasoning sufficiently and had not properly addressed the inspector's contrary recommendation.

The High Court rejected most of those arguments. It found there was sufficient material before the Board, including correspondence from a local councillor and Ballydehob Community Council, maps and photographs. The court also held that the Board adequately explained its reasoning and was entitled to rely on the area's designation as part of a scenic route.

However, Mr Justice Hanna found no evidence of a public right of way over Mr Satke's land. That error did not invalidate the decision because the other two planning restrictions operated independently. The judicial review application was therefore refused.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review