The High Court refused Kildare County Council leave to seek judicial review of An Bord Pleanála’s decision refusing approval for the proposed Athy Inner Relief Street and annulling the related compulsory purchase order. The court also declined the council’s request to amend its grounds of challenge.
The decision was made by Mr Justice John MacMenamin in a judgment dated 10 March 2006. The application concerned two Board decisions dated 2 June 2005. The judgment records that the council sought leave to challenge both decisions; the court was deciding whether the council had shown “substantial grounds” for a judicial review, not whether the road should be built.
The proposed route was about one kilometre long. It would cross the Grand Canal and River Barrow and run near historic streets and buildings in Athy. The Board gave three reasons for refusing approval: it considered that the road would continue to bring traffic, including heavy commercial vehicles, through the town centre; that it would adversely affect the character and townscape of the historic centre; and that the environmental impact statement did not adequately address alternatives in light of current land use, traffic and environmental constraints.
The council challenged the Board’s conclusions on traffic, townscape and the environmental statement, and argued that it should have been told of the statement’s alleged deficiencies and given an opportunity to provide more information. The judgment recounts that objections about the road’s need and possible alternatives had been raised in written submissions and at the public oral hearing, where the council had an opportunity to respond.
The judge found that the council had not shown substantial grounds to challenge any of the three reasons. He said the Board was entitled to assess the evidence and weigh competing planning considerations, and that the court’s role was not to re-decide the merits. On the environmental statement, he noted that its discussion of alternatives relied in part on older material and focused on variations to the proposed route. He nevertheless concluded that the Board’s finding of deficiency was not irrational on the material before it. He also found no basis for the council’s fair-procedure argument, given that the alternatives issue had been aired at the hearing.
The court refused the proposed amendment to the grounds, treating it as a new ground and finding no good and sufficient reason to extend the time for bringing it. As leave was refused against the road approval decision, the related challenge to the compulsory purchase order’s annulment failed as well. The judgment’s final paragraph refers to Board decisions made on 21 June 2005, although its earlier account identifies the decisions as dated 2 June 2005.