Connelly v An Bord Pleanala & ors

Factual and Procedural Background

Company C sought planning permission to construct a six-turbine wind farm in The County. The local planning authority, Company B, refused permission on 12 July 2011. Company C appealed to Company A (the national planning appeal body) on 8 August 2011. Company A appointed an inspector who produced a report on 30 November 2011 identifying several environmental concerns. After further information (including a Natura Impact Statement) was requested under statutory notice, Company A granted permission on 29 May 2014.

The Plaintiff, a local resident, initiated judicial-review proceedings challenging that permission. Judge Barrett in the High Court quashed Company A’s decision for inadequate reasoning in respect of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Appropriate Assessment (AA). Company A obtained “leapfrog” leave and appealed directly to the Supreme Court, where Judge Clarke delivered the present judgment on 17 July 2018.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court applied an unduly stringent standard when evaluating the adequacy of Company A’s reasons for its decision.
2. Whether Company A lawfully carried out and documented an Environmental Impact Assessment under domestic and EU law.
3. Whether Company A lawfully carried out and documented an Appropriate Assessment in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive.
4. Whether Company A could rely on the inspector’s report and other file materials not expressly cross-referenced in its decision.
5. Whether European Union requirements imposed additional, specific obligations on Company A when giving reasons in EIA/AA cases.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant’s (Company A) Arguments

• The High Court focused on isolated passages and ignored the decision “as a whole,” contrary to precedent.
• Section 177V of the Planning Act does not impose an express duty to provide detailed AA reasoning; the Board’s overall decision and file materials suffice.
• The Board is entitled to adopt parts of the inspector’s report even when disagreeing with the ultimate recommendation, provided deviations are explained.
• The trial judge wrongly insisted that every document relied on must be specifically cited in the final decision.
• The Board did undertake lawful EIA and AA; the High Court applied an excessive standard exceeding legislative and EU requirements.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

• Company A failed to record a screening assessment, a proper AA and a proper EIA, rendering the permission ultra vires.
• The reasons furnished were so generic that an affected person could not understand or meaningfully challenge the decision.
• EU law requires “complete, precise and definitive” findings in an AA; these are absent from Company A’s decision.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Clarke first clarified the dual purposes of reasons: (1) to tell affected persons why a decision was made; (2) to enable effective judicial oversight. He reaffirmed that reasons need not mimic a lengthy judicial judgment but must rise above “box-ticking.” Applying Christian, the Court held that reasons may be found in the decision, the inspector’s report and materials clearly incorporated by reference, provided an interested person can locate them without an unreasonable “trawl.”

On the EIA issue, the Court found the inspector’s report, the further information request, and the Board’s detailed six-point rebuttal sufficient to let any interested party evaluate whether an EIA was lawfully undertaken. The High Court’s standard was deemed too exacting.

However, AA demands a higher EU-law threshold. Although the Board stated the correct conclusion—that the project would not adversely affect designated sites—it failed to record the “complete, precise and definitive scientific findings” required by Kelly and CJEU jurisprudence. The decision recited distances, revised layouts and mitigation, but made no explicit scientific findings demonstrating the absence of risk. That omission deprived Company A of jurisdiction to grant permission.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED IN PART; PERMISSION QUASHED FOR INADEQUATE APPROPRIATE ASSESSMENT

The Supreme Court reversed the High Court on the general adequacy-of-reasons and EIA issues, but upheld the quashing of planning permission because Company A’s Appropriate Assessment lacked the specific scientific findings required by EU law. The matter may be remitted to Company A for a fresh decision consistent with the judgment. No new precedent on domestic reasoning standards was set, but the judgment strengthens the distinction between national “reason-giving” obligations and the stricter substantive requirements governing Appropriate Assessment under the Habitats Directive.