The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s permission for 450 homes and associated development south of Marsh Road, Drogheda, after the Board conceded that it had insufficient evidence to screen out significant effects on the Boyne Estuary Special Protection Area (SPA).
Mr Justice Denis McDonald delivered judgment on 19 June 2020 in judicial review proceedings brought by Protect East Meath Limited. The immediate issue was whether Ravala Limited, the developer and a notice party, could continue defending the permission despite the Board’s concession. The judge refused Ravala’s request and made an order of certiorari quashing the planning decision of 27 November 2019.
The Board said its decision to screen out significant effects on the SPA was legally wrong in light of its later decision in a separate case, ABP-305703-19. It accepted that there was not enough evidence to support that screening conclusion. The court considered the concession significant because the Board is the competent authority for the assessment and had also said it would not stand over parts of its ecologist’s note, the inspector’s report on ex-situ impacts, or its own decision on those impacts.
Ravala argued that it should be allowed to defend the permission. It said a 2018 survey followed best-practice methods, that the site was not ecologically connected to the SPA, and that industrial uses, roads and other features interrupted any connection. It also relied on the availability of other grasslands for birds and disputed that residents would cause significant disturbance. These were Ravala’s proposed arguments; the court was deciding only whether it could continue the defence, not determining a full screening assessment on the merits.
The judge said a notice party will ordinarily have a legitimate interest in defending a decision made in its favour. But he found no sufficient objective material in Ravala’s proposed opposition and affidavits to show clearly that the applicable test could be met despite the Board’s concession. In particular, the material did not objectively support the ecologist’s view that road safety and limited access meant new residents’ walking and dog walking would not measurably affect the SPA. The judge stressed that this did not rule out Ravala producing adequate information in a future application, or a full appropriate assessment finding no significant effects.
The court did not decide the parties’ remaining arguments about the legal effect of the Board’s concession. Costs were left unresolved: the parties were given 14 days to try to agree orders covering costs incurred before and after the Board’s 18 February 2020 letter, followed by a further seven days for observations on any unresolved costs.