High Court Reinforces Stringent Standards for Certificate Applications under Section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 – Freeney v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 36

Introduction

The case Freeney v An Bord Pleanála [No. 2] (Approved) ([2025] IEHC 36) was adjudicated by the High Court of Ireland on January 24, 2025. The applicant, Paul Freeney, sought a certificate under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to appeal a prior judgment (Freeney v An Bord Pleanála & Ors [2024] IEHC 427). The initial judgment had dismissed Freeney’s challenge against An Bord Pleanála's decision to grant planning permission to CWC Fairgreen Ltd. for the change of use and related works at Fairgreen House, Galway City.

The key issues addressed in this application revolved around the correctness of legal propositions applied in previous cases, the validity test for public notices, requirements under the Habitats Directive, and the potential abdication of planning considerations to the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956 by An Bord Pleanála.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Conleth Bradley delivered a judgment refusing Freeney's application for a certificate to appeal the principal judgment. The court meticulously examined each proposed point of law raised by Freeney, determining that none met the stringent criteria set forth under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Specifically, the High Court found that Freeney failed to demonstrate that the points of law were of exceptional public importance or that it was in the public interest to grant an appeal. Consequently, the application for a certificate was denied, thereby upholding the original decision of An Bord Pleanála.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced established jurisprudence to buttress its decision. Notably, it reiterated the principles from Glancré Teoranta v An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250, which underscores the limited appellate jurisdiction under section 50A(7). Further, cases like Rushe & Anor v An Bord Pleanála & Ors (No.2) [2020] IEHC 429 and Sherwin v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IESC 13 were pivotal in reinforcing the necessity for points of law to be clearly pleaded and of significant public relevance.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed each proposed point of law, applying the dual criteria set by section 50A(7): (i) the point must be of exceptional public importance, and (ii) it must be in the public interest to allow an appeal. In addressing Freeney's arguments:

Material Contravention: The court found no uncertainty or lack of clarity in the application of previous case law, thereby negating the need for appellate intervention.
Public Notices: The judgment upheld the adequacy of public notices as per established guidelines, dismissing the notion that the notices were misleading or inadequate.
Screening for Appropriate Assessment: The court deemed the applicant’s challenge too general and unprecise, failing to meet the necessary standards for appellate consideration.
Alleged Abdication of Function: It was concluded that An Bord Pleanála did not abdicate its planning considerations to the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, thus not presenting a substantial point of law.

Impact

This judgment has reinforced the High Court’s stringent approach to granting certificates for appeals in judicial reviews related to planning decisions. It emphasizes that only issues of profound public significance, which have the potential to influence broader legal interpretations or societal implications, warrant appellate scrutiny. Practitioners can anticipate a high threshold for future certificate applications, necessitating well-articulated and impactful legal points.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Certificate Application under Section 50A(7)

A certificate under section 50A(7) is a legal mechanism allowing parties to appeal a High Court judgment to the Court of Appeal. However, such appeals are only permissible if the case involves a point of law that is exceptionally important to the public and it benefits the public interest to have the appeal heard.

Material Contravention

This term refers to a significant breach of the planning regulations that can influence the granting or refusal of planning permissions. In this case, the issue was whether the planning authority properly considered such contraventions.

Screening Assessment under the Habitats Directive

This assessment determines whether a proposed development might affect protected habitats or species, triggering a more detailed examination. The court evaluated whether the initial assessment met the required legal standards.

Abdication of Function

This implies that An Bord Pleanála might have transferred its planning evaluation responsibilities to another statutory framework, specifically the Gaming and Lotteries Act 1956, instead of applying planning laws directly.

Conclusion

The decision in Freeney v An Bord Pleanála [No. 2] (Approved) ([2025] IEHC 36) serves as a pivotal affirmation of the High Court's commitment to maintaining rigorous standards for appellate scrutiny in planning-related judicial reviews. By denying the certificate application, the court underscored the necessity for points of law to not only be clearly articulated and prevalently significant but also to transcend individual case facts to merit public importance. This judgment reaffirms the established legal framework, ensuring that only matters with substantial public implications proceed to higher appellate venues, thereby promoting legal certainty and efficient judicial processes within the realm of planning and development law.