The High Court has refused David Reddan leave to bring judicial review proceedings over planning permission for a roof above six driving bays at Nenagh Golf Club’s practice ground.
In a judgment delivered on 13 March 2025, Mr Justice Nolan ruled that none of Reddan’s nine grounds met the statutory threshold of substantial grounds for challenging An Bord Pleanála’s decision. The ruling was on an application for leave; the court did not conduct a full judicial review or quash the planning permission.
The Board granted permission on 5 September 2024, after the club appealed a Tipperary County Council permission issued on 31 July 2023. The proposed development covers the driving bays, with increased parking for 30 vehicles. The practice ground’s landing area was not part of the application. Reddan, a club member who bought adjacent lands in 2019, argued that golf balls entered his property and sought, among other things, to make the club change the practice area’s orientation.
The judge rejected Reddan’s argument that the landing area had to be outlined in red on the plans. He said the permission concerned the roofed bays, not the landing area, and the planning rules did not require the neighbouring property to be outlined as Reddan claimed.
Reddan also argued that use of the practice area was unauthorised or had become a commercial driving range. The court accepted the Board’s consideration of planning history, including a 1999 permission whose red-line boundary included the relevant lands. The judge concluded that the practice area formed part of the authorised golf club lands and that the proposed works were an upgrade for members, not a commercial enterprise.
Other grounds raised concerns about wastewater capacity, golf-ball safety, alleged inaccuracies in reports, and alleged bias by inspectors. The judge said the Board had considered the wastewater and safety issues, and found no evidence of bias or legal error. He also criticised Reddan’s unsupported allegations of criminal conduct against people involved in the planning process.
The court concluded that Reddan had failed to establish any substantial issue warranting judicial review and refused leave. The judgment did not decide any separate nuisance or compensation claim; the judge noted that no such proceedings had been issued.