The High Court has rejected a judicial review challenge to planning permission for a sports facility and community hall at Inver, Barnatra, County Mayo. O’Neill J. concluded that the applicant had not established that An Bord Pleanála failed in its legal duties. The court refused the relief sought; the permission was not quashed.
The challenge concerned the Board’s February 2013 decision to grant permission to Inver Community Development Group for a development including a sports hall, outdoor soccer pitch, playground, access road and car park. Maura Harrington sought an order quashing that decision and an order requiring an independent ecological assessment of the site.
Harrington argued that the site might be active blanket bog, a priority habitat under the Habitats Directive, and that the Board should have investigated the claim rather than rely on the developer’s Natura Impact Statement (NIS). The NIS classified the site as wet heath. The Board’s inspector reported that there was no convincing third-party evidence that it was blanket bog and considered the information sufficient to conclude the development would not adversely affect a Natura 2000 site.
The judge accepted that the Board had a duty to make appropriate enquiries on appeal, but said there had to be a reason for those enquiries based on credible evidence. A bare assertion that the site was a priority habitat did not create scientific doubt requiring an independent assessment, the court held. The judge also rejected the argument that the Board’s notices inviting submissions from the Heritage Council, An Taisce and the National Parks and Wildlife Service showed it had scientific doubts. None of those bodies responded.
The court found merit in the Board’s objection to additional criticisms of the NIS raised for the first time in the judicial review. Those matters had not been put to the Board in the planning appeal. The judge also said the applicant had provided no evidence to support her factual challenges to the NIS or the claim that the Board failed to carry out an appropriate assessment.
The judgment treated the Board’s description of Broadhaven Bay as a Special Protection Area, without also identifying it as a Special Area of Conservation, as a clerical error. It did not establish that the Board had failed to assess the site appropriately. The court also found that the applicant had not made out her complaint about public access to the Board’s determination.
The court concluded that Harrington was not entitled to the relief claimed. The judgment records the dismissal of the challenge; it does not set out a separate order quashing or varying the planning permission.