The High Court has refused a challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s permission for revised proposals to complete a partly built retail and commercial development at Parkway Valley, Singland, Co. Limerick. The court held that the application could be treated as an amendment to existing permissions and that the Board had carried out the required environmental screening.
South-West Regional Shopping Centre Promotion Association Limited and Stapleyside Company sought judicial review of the Board’s 8 April 2015 decision. They argued, among other grounds, that the Board lacked power to amend the earlier permissions, had failed to assess the proposal under current planning policies, and should have required a new environmental impact assessment.
The development had first been permitted in 2006 and later amended. Four permissions were extended to 14 August 2016 after substantial work had begun. The 2014 application proposed changes to the unfinished scheme, including removing the second floor and revising internal layouts, roads, parking and services. Its stated floor area was 63,712 square metres, below the 73,142 square metres previously permitted. The Board granted permission subject to conditions tying it to the parent permissions and their expiry date.
Justice Costello rejected the argument that only the statutory amendment procedures in sections 146A to 146D of the Planning and Development Act 2000 could allow changes to a permission. She held that the Board had jurisdiction to consider this application as a revision of extant permissions. She also rejected the claim that the challenge was out of time.
The court said proposed changes to an existing permission must be assessed against current planning plans and policies, but the parts already authorised and not being changed should not be reassessed. It found the Board had regard to current policies and was entitled to conclude that the proposed reduction in floor area did not materially contravene the development plan. The court therefore found that the statutory restrictions on granting permission for a material contravention did not apply.
The application also proposed demolishing or removing 6,465 square metres of a partly completed car park. The court accepted the Inspector’s assessment, adopted by the Board, that the changes did not require a new environmental impact assessment and that the demolition works had been properly screened for significant environmental effects.
The court refused the relief sought. The parties had agreed that costs, including the application of section 50B, would be dealt with at a later hearing; the judgment did not determine costs.