The High Court has refused Angela Pearse’s application to quash An Bord Pleanála’s decision in a review concerning a quarry in Co Westmeath. The court held that the Board’s review jurisdiction was limited to specified matters under section 261A of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and that its inspector had carried out an appropriate-assessment screening.
Pearse sought judicial review of the Board’s 2014 decision following a review of a Westmeath County Council determination. She argued, among other things, that the Board should have examined the validity of an environmental impact statement and assessment associated with an earlier planning permission, considered future development, and addressed issues raised in her submissions.
The council had determined in 2013 that development after February 1990 required an environmental impact assessment, which had been carried out, and that development after February 1997 required an appropriate assessment, which had not been carried out. It directed the quarry owner to apply to the Board for substitute consent with a remedial Natura Impact Statement. On review, the Board set aside the council’s determination concerning the requirement to apply for substitute consent with that statement.
Justice O’Regan found that the Board’s inspector had conducted a screening for appropriate assessment before the challenged decision. The screening considered nearby European sites, submissions and potential in-combination effects. The judge was satisfied that the applicant had not shown that the inspector misunderstood the applicable test or that the conclusion was inadequately reasoned.
The court also held that section 261A limited the Board’s review to the matters specified in the legislation. Because the council had determined that an environmental impact assessment was carried out, the question whether that assessment or the earlier planning permission was valid did not fall within the review matter before the Board. The judge said the Board had no jurisdiction to entertain those additional issues.
The judgment further rejected the argument that the section required a broad review of the lawfulness of assessments already undertaken or an assessment of future development. The judge considered that approach inconsistent with the section’s wording, relevant guidelines and legal certainty. The court noted that an earlier High Court determination concerning the quarry’s pre-1964 use had not been overturned; an appeal from that decision had been withdrawn.
The reliefs sought were refused. The judgment does not determine the validity of the earlier planning permission through this proceeding; it addresses the scope of the Board’s review under section 261A and the challenge to its decision.