The High Court has refused An Bord Pleanála permission to appeal two points of law arising from its decision to quash the Board’s refusal of planning permission for 16 homes and associated works at Kilnagleary, Carrigaline, Co Cork.
In a judgment delivered on 31 January 2025, Ms Justice Emily Farrell refused the certificates required for an appeal to the Court of Appeal under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. She said the statutory requirements were cumulative and that an appeal on either proposed point was not desirable in the public interest.
The application followed a principal judgment delivered on 25 September 2024. The High Court had found that the Board misinterpreted Objective ZU18-10 of the Cork County Development Plan 2022–2028. The objective addresses whether development supports or threatens the vitality or integrity of employment uses. The judge held that residential development was not excluded simply because it did not appear in the plan’s list of appropriate uses. The Board had been required to assess the proposal’s effect on employment uses.
The court also found that the Board had not given adequate reasons for concluding that the proposal was contrary to proper planning and sustainable development. The Board had relied on the objective’s contravention, which it had not found to be material, without explaining why that made the development unacceptable. The judgment said this was a separate ground for quashing the Board’s decision.
The Board sought to appeal on whether a development plan can allow residential development without expressly naming it as an appropriate use, and whether the Board can refuse permission solely because land is not zoned for the proposed use. Justice Farrell said the first question raised a new argument about the statutory scheme that had not been pleaded or argued in the substantive case. The Board had not explained why it had not raised it earlier.
The second proposed point assumed that the development plan barred residential use on the site. The judge said that premise was inconsistent with her interpretation of the objective. She also found that even a successful appeal on the Board’s reasons would not change the outcome, because the separate finding on the plan’s interpretation remained.
The court refused leave to appeal on both points. It listed the matter for mention on 17 February 2025 to address the final orders in the proceedings.