Judgment: 2018-07-30 · Court archive

High Court dismisses challenge to Galway planning refusal

The court found no evidence that errors cited by the applicant affected An Bord Pleanála’s decision to refuse permission for redevelopment at College Road.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 547

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Jerrard Nestor (Applicant)
  • An Bord Pleanála
  • Clarence Quinn and John Walshe
  • Clarence Quinn
  • John Walshe
What

The court found no evidence that errors cited by the applicant affected An Bord Pleanála’s decision to refuse permission for redevelopment at College Road.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • 134 College Road, Galway City
  • Galway City
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

An Bord Pleanála accepted that the 1.3-metre figure was wrong, but said the plans showed an access width of about 2.3 metres and that the error did not mislead the Board. The Board also said ceiling height did not inform its decision. The judge noted that this evidence was uncontradicted. He found no evidence that the Board relied on either the mistaken measurement or the ceiling-height issue in refusing permission.

The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for redevelopment at 134 College Road, Galway City.

In a judgment delivered on 30 July 2018, Mr Justice Noonan ruled that the applicant had not established that errors in the planning process vitiated the Board’s decision. The application was dismissed; the judgment does not grant planning permission or overturn the refusal.

The applicant, Jerrard Nestor, sought permission in 2013 from Galway City Council to convert a three-storey dwelling into three apartments and alter existing apartments to the rear. The council approved the application, but Clarence Quinn and John Walshe appealed. An Bord Pleanála refused permission on 3 March 2014, citing the proposed building’s height and scale, overlooking from balconies, and concerns about overdevelopment and the narrow access serving six apartments.

After an initial refusal of leave to seek judicial review, the Court of Appeal extended the time to apply and granted leave in April 2016. Nestor argued that the inspector had misstated the access width as 1.3 metres, wrongly treated building guidance on ceiling heights as mandatory, failed to consider the council roads section’s lack of objection, and should have issued a split decision allowing retention of existing development.

An Bord Pleanála accepted that the 1.3-metre figure was wrong, but said the plans showed an access width of about 2.3 metres and that the error did not mislead the Board. The Board also said ceiling height did not inform its decision. The judge noted that this evidence was uncontradicted. He found no evidence that the Board relied on either the mistaken measurement or the ceiling-height issue in refusing permission.

The judgment said the applicant had not met the high threshold for judicial review based on alleged factual errors. It also found no established obligation to issue a split decision and noted that the council roads section’s lack of objection was referenced in the inspector’s report. The court dismissed the application.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review