Introduction

Keshmore Homes Limited (KHL), a development company, sought judicial review of a decision by An Bord Pleanála (the Board), the Irish planning authority, which refused planning permission for a residential development comprising 62 dwellings in Kildare Town, County Kildare. The refusal was primarily based on the proposed development's material contravention of the Kildare County Development Plan 2017-2023 (CDP) and the Kildare Town Local Area Plan 2012-2018 (LAP). KHL challenged the decision on multiple grounds, including allegations of the Board's failure to consider KHL's submissions, lack of procedural fairness concerning a variation to the Development Plan, and inconsistency in the Board's approach to similar applications.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court, presided over by Ms. Justice Siobhán Phelan, addressed KHL's application for judicial review. The court granted an extension of time for KHL to file the judicial review due to delays caused by the Board's deviation from its standard document publication practices and COVID-19 related restrictions. However, the court dismissed KHL's substantive arguments challenging the Board's decision. Specifically, the court found that the Board appropriately refused permission based on the material contravention of the Development Plan and LAP, and there was no requirement for the Board to consider granting permission notwithstanding this contravention. Additionally, the court held that the Board acted consistently in its approach to different planning applications.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases to underpin the decision:

• Balz v. An Bord Pleanála [2019] IESC 90: Established the duty of decision-makers to address relevant submissions to maintain public trust in their decisions.
• Cicol v. An Bord Pleanála [2008] IEHC 146: Clarified that if a development is found to be in material contravention of the Development Plan, the Board is not obligated to consider granting permission unless specific criteria are met.
• Kenny v. An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 290: Reinforced that the discretion to grant permission notwithstanding a material contravention arises only when the development aligns with the principles of proper planning and sustainable development.
• Wexele v. Dun Laoghaire County Council [2010] IEHC 21: Highlighted the importance of procedural fairness and the obligation to consider significant new submissions that could affect decision-making.
• Kildare County Council v. An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 173: Discussed the sufficiency of procedural adherence concerning environmental impact statements.
• McMonagail agus a Mhic Teoranta v. Ireland & Ors. [2023] IEHC 223: Examined the obligation to afford opportunities for submissions in planning appeals.

Legal Reasoning

The court meticulously analyzed the procedural aspects of the Board's decision-making process. It concluded that while the Board had deviated from its standard practice by not promptly uploading critical documents online—which contributed to KHL's delay—the exceptional circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic warranted an extension of time. Regarding the substantive issues, the court affirmed that the Board acted within its discretion by refusing permission based on the material contravention of established development plans. The Board was not required to consider granting permission under Section 37(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 unless specific criteria were fulfilled, which they were not in this case.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the necessity for planning authorities to adhere strictly to procedural fairness, especially when significant variations to development plans occur during an appeal process. It underscores the limited discretion of the Board to override material contraventions of development plans unless stringent conditions are met. Future cases will likely reference this judgment when addressing issues of procedural delays and the conditions under which extensions of time for judicial review may be granted.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Judicial Review

A judicial review is a legal procedure through which courts oversee the legality of decisions or actions taken by public bodies. In this case, KHL sought to challenge the legality of the Board's decision to refuse planning permission.

Material Contravention

A material contravention refers to a significant breach of established development plans or local area plans that justifies the refusal of a planning application.

Section 50(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000

This section provides the High Court with the authority to extend the time limit for applying for a judicial review under specific circumstances, such as delays caused by factors beyond the applicant's control.

Section 37(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2000

This provision grants the Board the discretion to approve a planning application even if it materially contravenes the development plan, provided certain conditions are met, such as the development being of national importance.

Conclusion

The Keshmore Homes LTD v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 369 judgment serves as a pivotal reference point for ensuring procedural fairness in the planning appeals process. It highlights the delicate balance between adhering to established development plans and accommodating exceptional circumstances that may impede timely legal actions. The court's decision to grant an extension of time underscores the importance of flexibility in administrative processes, especially during unprecedented challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic. Moreover, the affirmation of the Board's discretion in upholding material contraventions of development plans reinforces the robustness of planning regulations in guiding sustainable and orderly urban development. Stakeholders in future planning disputes will find this judgment instrumental in understanding the boundaries of procedural fairness and administrative discretion within the Irish planning framework.