Waltham Abbey Residents Association v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment concerns a judicial review application brought by the Applicant challenging a decision of the Respondent Board regarding planning permission under the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016 and the Planning and Development Act 2000. The High Court had previously granted certiorari quashing the Board's decision (referred to as the No. 1 judgment). The Board seeks leave to appeal that decision. The Developer Notice Party and the State Respondents did not participate in the current leave to appeal application, which was opposed by the Applicant. The case involves interpretation and application of Article 299B of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, concerning environmental impact assessment (EIA) screening requirements, particularly whether a "statement" required by the regulations must be a distinct identifiable document addressing other European law assessments.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Article 299B(1)(b)(ii)(II)(C) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, requires that an application for planning permission subject to environmental impact assessment screening be accompanied by a distinct identifiable document ("statement") addressing available results of other assessments pursuant to European legislation other than the EIA Directive, or whether the Board may satisfy itself that sufficient information is present without such a distinct document.
2. If such a distinct identifiable document is required, whether the Board is obliged under Article 299B(2)(a) of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, as amended, to refuse to deal with an application that does not include such a document.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory and regulatory framework governing environmental impact assessments under Irish and European law, focusing on Article 299B of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended) and its relationship with the EU EIA Directive.

The Court emphasized that the term "statement" in Article 299B is a term of domestic law and should be interpreted as requiring a distinct identifiable document, akin to established planning documents such as a Natura Impact Statement or Environmental Impact Assessment Report. This interpretation is necessary to ensure transparency, public participation, and compliance with the objectives of the EU Directive.

The Court rejected the argument that scattered fragments of information within voluminous developer documentation could be pieced together retrospectively to satisfy the "statement" requirement. It found that such an approach undermines the clarity and purpose of the regulation.

The Court also addressed conflicting jurisprudence, notably the judgment of Owens J. in Pembroke Road Association v. An Bord Pleanála, which took a more deferential approach to the Board’s assessment and did not require a distinct statement. The Court distinguished this approach, clarifying that interpretation of law is exclusively a judicial function and that administrative bodies have no power to conclusively decide legal interpretation without judicial review.

The Court identified procedural deficiencies in the Board’s decision-making, including the absence of any explicit reference to Article 299B, conflation of separate decisions at the screening stage, lack of evidential clarity on how other EU law assessments were considered, and failure to address several potentially relevant EU directives, particularly the Water Framework Directive.

Regarding the Board’s proposed certified questions, the Court found the first question concerning the meaning of "statement" as a distinct identifiable document to be suitable for certification and leave to appeal, primarily to resolve the conflict in jurisprudence. The second question, relating to the Board’s obligation to refuse applications lacking such a statement, was rejected as not a viable proposition and unnecessary.

The Court acknowledged that even if the certified question were resolved in the Board’s favor, numerous further procedural and substantive issues remain, including compliance with Article 299B and potential referral to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for interpretation of EU law.

Finally, the Court noted the Board’s intention to seek leapfrog leave to appeal directly to the Supreme Court, endorsing this approach as potentially beneficial for the timely and definitive resolution of the important legal issues raised.

Holding and Implications

The Court granted leave to appeal on the reworded first certified question concerning whether the term "statement" in Article 299B(1)(b)(ii)(II)(C) requires a distinct identifiable document.

Holding: Leave to appeal is granted on the certified question as reworded by the Court.

Implications: This decision allows the appellate courts to resolve conflicting interpretations of Article 299B and clarify the procedural requirements for environmental impact assessment screening in planning applications. The ruling does not itself resolve all substantive issues but paves the way for further judicial scrutiny. It does not establish new precedent beyond certifying the question for appeal but highlights the importance of clear, identifiable documentation in compliance with both domestic and EU law.