The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge by Ogalas Limited, which trades as Homestore and More, to An Bord Pleanála’s decision on the use of its store at Sligo Retail Park.
The Board had decided that the store’s use for the type and class of goods being sold constituted development and was not exempted development. The company sought to have that decision quashed. In a judgment delivered on 23 October 2014, Ms Justice Baker refused the relief sought, leaving the Board’s decision in place.
The case concerned planning permission for Unit 5, which restricted retailing to bulky household goods and goods generally sold in bulk, as defined by the 2000 Retail Planning Guidelines. Sligo Chamber of Commerce had asked Sligo County Council whether the goods sold by Homestore and More represented a change of use. The council said they did not. The Chamber referred that declaration to the Board, which reached the opposite conclusion in May 2013.
The company argued that the inspector and Board had misinterpreted the definition of bulky goods, relied too heavily on the 2012 guidelines, and failed to give adequate reasons. The Board argued that it had sufficient information and that any error in the inspector’s report had not affected its decision.
Justice Baker said the 2000 guidelines governed interpretation of the planning condition because the condition expressly referred to them. The 2012 guidelines could assist, she said, but could not displace the earlier definition if the two differed. She found that the inspector had erred by placing emphasis on the 2012 guidelines and by treating an IKEA store as an appropriate comparator. The inspector also failed to give proper regard to the possibility that individually small goods could form part of a bulky collective purchase.
The judge concluded, however, that the Board had considered the 2000 guidelines, the submissions about collective purchases, the inspector’s report and other material. The Board’s final decision showed that it had not simply adopted the inspector’s errors. The court’s role was to review the Board’s decision-making process, not to decide the planning question afresh. It found the Board’s decision was supported by material before it and was neither irrational nor unreasonable, nor the result of a mistake of law.
The judgment concerned only the challenge to the Board’s decision under the judicial review process. The court did not substitute its own determination of whether the store’s use was authorised under planning law.