The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a proposed 661-home development on the outskirts of Drogheda, finding that the decision was unlawful on three grounds.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald ruled on 2 December 2020 that the Board was precluded from granting permission because part of the site was designated “Residential Phase II (Post 2019)” in Meath County Council’s development plan. The court found that, in substance, the designation meant the lands were unavailable for residential use during the plan’s 2013–2019 lifetime. It rejected the Board’s position that the designation concerned only the priority or timing of development.
The proposed strategic housing development by Trailford Limited comprised 509 houses, 152 apartments, a crèche, a shop and a café. The judicial review was brought by Highlands Residents Association and Protect East Meath Limited. The court found that the residents association had sufficient interest to pursue the zoning challenge, given its members lived in an estate adjacent to the site, despite not raising that point before the Board.
The judge also found that the Board lacked an adequate basis at the initial screening stage to exclude possible effects on bird species associated with the Boyne Estuary Special Protection Area. The court noted that the assessment materials did not establish whether surveys took place at high tide, when some birds may use agricultural land as an alternative feeding habitat. It concluded that the screening did not meet the statutory requirement to assess effects using the best scientific knowledge.
A further error arose from the Board taking proposed measures to control sediment and other pollutants into account during screening for effects on European sites. The judge found that the measures were also intended to protect those sites and could not lawfully be relied on at that stage. A full appropriate assessment was required.
The court did not uphold the applicants’ separate challenge concerning bats. It said planning permission did not authorise interference with protected bats: any such work would still have to comply with the wildlife licensing regime. The court did not address the applicants’ arguments about the State’s transposition of EU protections or the compatibility of the planning legislation with the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive, because it had allowed the challenge on other grounds.
The judge said he would grant an order quashing the Board’s permission and declarations concerning the zoning and screening errors. The precise orders, including any consequential costs order, remained to be settled. The parties were directed to try to agree their terms within 14 days of electronic delivery of the judgment, with further directions to follow if they could not agree.