The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s 2003 refusal of planning permission for an advertising sign at 171 Drimnagh Road, finding that the Board had not adequately explained its change of position from earlier decisions allowing the same development.
Mr Justice O’Neill delivered the judgment on 24 October 2006 in a judicial review brought by Thomas Grealish. The application challenged the Board’s decision to refuse permission on appeal, arguing that it gave inadequate reasons and was irrational. Dublin City Council was named as a notice party.
The court found the proposed development was essentially the same as the structure permitted in 1990 and 1997, and that there was no evidence of a material change in the physical environment since 1997. The earlier permissions had expired, and the Board was entitled to reach a different decision on a later application. However, the judge said it had to make clear the reasons and considerations behind that change of stance.
The Board had refused permission for retention of a prismatic advertising sign measuring 6.5 metres by 3.5 metres. Its stated concerns were excessive scale, inadequate integration with the building, and visual clutter that would injure the area’s visual amenities. The Board also said the inspector’s recommended reduction in scale would not overcome its concerns. The inspector had recommended permission subject to reducing the sign to four metres by three metres.
The judge considered whether the 1999 Dublin City Development Plan explained the changed decision. He found no material change in its provisions on scale or integration that accounted for the reversal. The 1999 plan did introduce a provision concerning the number and scale of hoardings in the vicinity, which could explain the Board’s concern about visual clutter. But the decision and accompanying materials did not explicitly say that this change was the reason, leaving the court to assume or speculate.
The judge concluded that the reasons given failed to explain the change on the scale and integration issues, and that the court should not have to guess the Board’s reasoning on visual clutter. He also said that, if the decision were treated as explaining itself, the reversal on the first two issues would lack supporting material and be irrational.
The court held the refusal was fatally flawed and granted an order of certiorari quashing the impugned 2003 decision. The judgment did not itself grant planning permission.