Reddan v An Bord Pleanala (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings against the decision of the Respondent ("the Board") to grant planning permission to the Notice Party ("the Golf Club") for the construction of a roof over six driving bays on the practice ground at Nenagh Golf Club, located in County Tipperary.

The Applicant, a recent purchaser of lands adjacent to the Golf Club's practice ground and a long-time member of the Golf Club, alleges multiple breaches of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) and constitutional and human rights infringements related to his property enjoyment. The Golf Club had submitted a planning application for the roofed driving bays, which was granted by the local authority in July 2023, followed by an appeal to the Board. After inspections and submissions, the Board approved the permission in September 2024.

The Applicant sought leave for judicial review in September 2024, asserting public importance and broad implications for planning applications. The court directed that the Golf Club be made a notice party and allowed an inter partes hearing with amended pleadings. The Applicant filed affidavits but no submissions. The grounds for judicial review include questions of authorized development, alleged nuisance from golf balls landing on his land, and allegations of perjury.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the proposed development constituted an authorized development under the Planning and Development Act 2000 and related regulations.
2. Whether the Board’s decision to grant planning permission was invalid due to procedural or substantive errors, including misrepresentations and alleged false statements.
3. Whether the Applicant’s constitutional rights under Article 40 and rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were infringed by the decision.
4. Whether the Applicant established substantial grounds to justify leave for judicial review, including public interest considerations.
5. Whether allegations of bias, procedural irregularities, or errors in the Inspector’s reports warranted judicial intervention.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The planning application failed to properly include the landing area for golf balls in the site layout plans as required by law.
• The development was unauthorized, particularly regarding the operation of a commercial driving range since 2018.
• The Inspector’s report failed to consider the impact on the sewerage system and public health concerns raised by the Applicant.
• Allegations of perjury and misrepresentation by the Golf Club and its professionals in relation to submitted documents.
• Assertions of infringement of constitutional rights, including the right to property and peaceful enjoyment thereof.
• Claims of bias by the Inspectors and lack of proper consideration of expert analyses regarding golf ball dispersal.

Respondent's (Board's) Arguments

• The Applicant must demonstrate substantial grounds for judicial review, which he has failed to do.
• Judicial review is limited to legality, not merits; the Applicant’s grounds are vague, inadequately particularised, and merit-based rather than legal errors.
• The planning permission relates solely to the roof over the driving bays, not the landing area, and all relevant documentation complied with regulations.
• The development is for club member use, not commercial purposes, and has been properly considered by Inspectors and the Board.
• Allegations of perjury and bias lack evidence and are inappropriate and vexatious.
• The Applicant’s submissions contain sensational, unsubstantiated claims without evidentiary support.

Notice Party's (Golf Club's) Arguments

• The application is frivolous, vexatious, and motivated by personal animus following the Applicant’s land purchase adjacent to the Golf Club.
• The Applicant’s grounds lack precision, are hyperbolic, and unsupported by facts.
• The development is an upgrade for members’ benefit only and not a commercial enterprise.
• Allegations of reckless endangerment and perjury are unfounded and defamatory.
• Reliance on established legal principles requiring substantial grounds for judicial review.
• There has been a lack of candor by the Applicant in presenting a full and accurate picture necessary for discretionary relief.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court conducted a meticulous review of the planning documentation, the local authority and Board decisions, and the submissions and affidavits. It found that the planning permission related strictly to the construction of a roof over existing driving bays, not the landing area for golf balls, which had been in use for approximately 30 years. The court clarified that the Applicant’s interpretation of the Planning and Development Regulations was incorrect, particularly regarding the requirement to delineate the landing area or the Applicant’s property in red on site plans.

The Board had properly considered the planning history, including previous permissions covering the Golf Club lands, establishing that the practice area was authorized use. The court rejected the Applicant’s claims of commercial operation, finding the development to be a non-commercial upgrade for club members.

Regarding the sewerage system concerns and public health allegations, the court noted the absence of supporting evidence and found these claims to be sensational and unsubstantiated. The court emphasized the importance of pleadings being precise and supported by facts, and that judicial review is not a forum for airing merit-based disputes or conspiracy theories.

The court also addressed the Applicant’s allegations of perjury and bias, finding them to be unparticularised, inappropriate, and lacking evidentiary foundation. It condemned the use of legal proceedings for personal vendettas and unfounded accusations, underscoring the need for good faith in litigation.

Overall, the court found the Applicant’s grounds to be trivial, tenuous, and devoid of substantial merit or public interest. The court acknowledged the Applicant’s status as a litigant in person and afforded him latitude but maintained that the legal standards for leave to judicially review were not met.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED the Applicant’s application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings against the Board’s decision granting planning permission to the Golf Club.

The direct effect is that the planning permission stands and no judicial review will proceed. The decision reinforces the stringent requirements for demonstrating substantial grounds in judicial review applications related to planning decisions. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling applies established principles to the facts at hand, emphasizing the court’s role in reviewing legality rather than merits and discouraging vexatious or unsubstantiated claims in planning litigation.