The High Court has ruled that An Bord Pleanála misinterpreted Cork County Council’s development plan and gave inadequate reasons when it refused planning permission for a 24-home scheme at Kilnagleary, Carrigaline.
In a judgment delivered on 25 September 2024, Ms Justice Emily Farrell found that the Board wrongly treated the plan’s list of appropriate uses for existing mixed business and industrial areas as exhaustive. The court also found the Board had not explained why the scheme would be contrary to proper planning and sustainable development, particularly after its inspector had recommended approval.
Goce Limited applied in March 2018 to build eight semi-detached houses, 16 apartments and associated works on a site of about 0.7 hectares. Cork County Council granted permission, but the Board refused it on appeal in May 2023. The Board’s stated reason was that residential use was not listed among the appropriate uses under Objective ZU18-10, which applies to the site.
Justice Farrell said the objective required the decision-maker to assess whether a proposal would fail to support or threaten the vitality or integrity of employment uses. The development plan did not say that uses absent from its list were automatically prohibited. The Board’s interpretation was an error of law, the judge ruled.
The court separately found that the Board’s refusal gave no finding on whether the housing scheme would support or threaten employment uses in the area. It relied solely on the claimed zoning conflict to conclude that the proposal was contrary to proper planning. The judge said the Board had not explained why that conflict outweighed the inspector’s recommendation and other considerations in the inspector’s report.
The judgment did not decide whether the proposed housing would support or threaten employment uses. Justice Farrell said that question required planning judgment by the Board. Nor did she determine when a use authorised by planning permission becomes an “existing use”; the earlier permission for eight detached houses on the site had not been acted on and had expired after the Board’s decision.
The court found for Goce Limited on the two main issues: interpretation of the plan and adequacy of reasons. It did not consider the remaining grounds. The judge expressed a provisional view that the company should receive its costs from the Board, subject to agreement or adjudication, and said the matter would be listed to address the form of final orders. The judgment records that further step; it does not state the final form of the orders.