Court rules quashing of fast tracked 450 house development in Drogheda will stand

An Bord Pleanála accepted that planning permission for a proposed development located at Marsh Road to the east of Drogheda Town Centre ought not to have been granted. Unrelated file image.

The High Court has ruled that a developer cannot continue to defend a challenge against Bord Pleanala's decision to allow 450 housing units be built in Drogheda which the planning authority accepts was flawed.

Earlier this year An Bord Pleanála accepted that planning permission for a proposed development located at Marsh Road to the east of Drogheda Town Centre ought not to have been granted.

The board had granted the proposed developer Ravala Ltd permission to construct the dwelling units, offices and a creche at the Co Louth site in November 2019.

The planning application was made directly by Ravala to the board under a fast-track process for large housing projects, bypassing the local authority.

That decision was challenged by the Environmental group Protect East Meath Ltd, represented by John Kenny Bl and instructed by solicitor Fred Logue.

The group claimed that the board's decision was flawed on grounds including that the board failed to properly take into account the impact the proposed development would have on the Boyne Estuary Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and on various species of birds and bats.

It was claimed that an assessment carried out on the Boyne Estuary SAC was not done correctly due to a lack of surveys on the local bird population.

The board was not entitled to screen out the possibility of significant effects on the SAC, it was also argued.

The challenge was admitted  to the High Court's fast-track strategic infrastructure development list.

Before the case came to trial the board conceded the case, meaning that the developer, should they wish to proceed with the project, will have to make a fresh application for planning permission.

It was accepted that the board erred by screening out the significant effects and the impact the proposed development may have on the SAC.

However Ravala Limited, which was a notice party to the environmental group's action, sought to continue to defend the proceedings, which Protect Meath East opposed.

In his judgement on Friday Mr Justice McDonald said that Ravala was not entitled to continue to defend the action, and made an order quashing the planning permission granted by the board.

The Judge that a relevant notice party is entitled to act as the legitimate contradictor to defend a decision in an action where the decision maker chooses not to defend the proceedings.

However in this case he said that no party including Ravala had identified to the court any case law where a notice party has defended a decision of a decision maker where the decision maker has consented to an order quashing the decision under challenge.

The board's concession of the challenge, the judge added, had the effect of raising a doubt about the absence of any risk that the proposed development may significantly effect the SAC.

The board's decision in this case he said was not something that "a court could ignore lightly."

The judge added that the board's concession can not always be determinative of proceedings.

However in cases where a decision is conceded on the basis of the adequacy of screening a court, he said will be slow to look behind a concession unless the notice party can clearly show that a proposed development poses no risk to a protected site.

In this case the judge said that Ravala had failed to demonstrate to the court that the necessary objective material is available, and had not persuaded the court that it should be allowed to defend the proceedings.