Introduction

The case of Concerned Residents of Treascon and Clondoolusk v An Bord Pleanála & Ors ([2023] IEHC 112) represents a significant judicial review in the context of environmental law and planning permissions in Ireland. The applicants, composed of local residents, challenged the decision of An Bord Pleanála (the Irish Planning Board) to grant permission for a solar farm project. Central to their challenge were concerns about the environmental impact, specifically regarding land restructuring and removal of hedgerows without a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Humphreys delivered the judgment on March 10, 2023, dismissing the applicants' proceedings. The applicants sought declaratory relief to mandate an EIA for the solar farm development and attempted to broaden their legal challenge by seeking leave to appeal, a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), and an order for costs. The High Court found that the applicants failed to plead sufficient grounds to support their requests for additional relief beyond the initial challenge, leading to the dismissal of their case.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key precedents that underscore the necessity for precise pleading in judicial reviews:

• Conway v. An Bord Pleanála & Clonres v. An Bord Pleanála [2022] IESCDET 71 - Highlighted the importance of sticking to the grounds originally pleaded.
• Moore v. An Bord Pleanála [2021] IESCDET 124 - Emphasized that leave to appeal is unwarranted if the appellate court cannot be satisfied with the pleadings.
• Case C-72/95 Kraaijeveld and Others v. Gedeputeerde Staten van Zuid-Holland - Provided EU law context regarding the broad scope of the EIA Directive.
• Ross v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2015] IEHC 484 - Reinforced that leave to appeal should not be granted for unproperly pleaded points.
• Additional references include statutory provisions like Section 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and related regulatory frameworks.

Legal Reasoning

Justice Humphreys focused on the foundational principle that judicial relief must be grounded in properly pleaded grounds. The applicants attempted to introduce new grounds and seek broader relief after the initial judgment, which the High Court found impermissible. The absence of a direct challenge to specific procedural or substantive aspects of the EIA requirements meant that the court could not entertain the applicants' broader claims.

Moreover, the judgment underscored that procedural flexibility has its limits, particularly when it comes to unpleaded reliefs or introducing new parties (like the Minister for Agriculture) without a sound procedural basis. The court maintained that any issues outside the originally pleaded case, especially those requiring new litigious routes like a CJEU reference, were beyond its remit in this context.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's stance on adhering strictly to pleaded grounds in judicial reviews. It serves as a clear reminder to litigants about the importance of meticulously presenting all relevant issues and grounds at the outset of proceedings. For practitioners, it emphasizes the need to anticipate and address potential grounds comprehensively to avoid futile attempts to expand or recalibrate claims post-judgment.

In the broader environmental law context, while the judgment did not set a new precedent regarding EIA requirements, it clarified procedural expectations in challenging planning permissions. Future applicants must ensure that their claims are robustly framed within existing legal boundaries to seek substantive relief effectively.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Treascon and Clondoolusk v An Bord Pleanála underscores the judiciary's firm commitment to procedural rigor in judicial reviews. By dismissing the applicants' attempt to seek unpleaded relief and refusing to entertain procedural overextensions like a CJEU reference without a solid foundation, the court reaffirmed the importance of adhering to established legal protocols. This judgment serves as a vital guide for future litigants and legal practitioners, emphasizing that comprehensive and precise pleading is indispensable for the successful pursuit of judicial remedies in environmental and planning law contexts.