Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced pivotal cases and legal frameworks to substantiate its conclusions:

• Connelly v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31: A Supreme Court decision that clarified the principles for conducting a valid AA under EU law.
• Kelly v. An Bord Pleanála [2014] IEHC 400: Established foundational principles for AA, later reaffirmed in Connelly.
• Glancré Teoranta v. An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250: Provided a summary of principles (Glancré principles) for applications for leave to appeal under section 50A(7).
• Holohan & ors v. An Bord Pleanála (C-461/177): A CJEU judgment influencing AA assessments.
• Donald M. v. Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine [2020] IESC 86: Referenced for procedural aspects of judicial review.
• Other significant cases like Arklow Holidays Ltd v. An Bord Pleanála, Callaghan v. An Bord Pleanála, and Halpin v. An Bord Pleanála were used to illustrate the application of the Glancré principles and §50A(7) requirements.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Barniville applied a rigorous interpretation of section 50A(7), emphasizing that only points of law of "exceptional public importance" warrant certification for appeal. He referenced the Glancré principles, which outline that:

• The point must transcend the individual case.
• The law in question should be uncertain or evolving.
• There must be an identifiable public benefit in clarifying the law.
• Certification is to be used sparingly and with significant justification.

The judge assessed each of the Applicants' four proposed questions against these criteria, concluding that none met the threshold of "exceptional public importance." The court found that the legal principles applied were well-established and not in a state of uncertainty or evolution, thereby negating the necessity for appellate intervention.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the High Court's adherence to the Glancré principles, underscoring the high threshold for certifying points of law for appeal. It clarifies that routine applications to challenge planning decisions, even when involving complex EU law aspects, are unlikely to be granted leave unless they introduce novel or highly significant legal questions. Consequently, stakeholders in planning and environmental law might anticipate that appellate avenues remain tightly controlled, promoting finality in judicial reviews unless genuinely groundbreaking legal issues arise.

Judicial Review

A judicial review is a process by which courts oversee the actions of public bodies to ensure they comply with the law. If a decision is deemed unlawful, unfair, or unreasonable, the court may quash it.

Appropriate Assessment (AA)

AA is a requirement under EU law, specifically the Habitats Directive, mandating that the potential impacts of a proposed development on protected species and their habitats are thoroughly evaluated before granting permission.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

EIA is a process used to evaluate the environmental consequences of a proposed project before it proceeds. It ensures that decision-makers consider potential environmental impacts and public concerns.

Section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 (as amended)

This provision governs the granting of leave to appeal decisions from the High Court to the Court of Appeal. It stipulates that such leave is only granted if the appeal involves a point of law of "exceptional public importance" and if it is "desirable in the public interest."

Glancré Principles

A set of criteria derived from the case Glancré Teoranta v. An Bord Pleanála, used to assess applications for leave to appeal under section 50A(7). They emphasize the necessity of exceptional public importance, legal uncertainty, and public interest in clarifying the law.