High Court (Planning & Environment) — Summary of Judgment

Factual and Procedural Background

This summary is derived exclusively from the provided opinion. All personal names, local names and public bodies have been replaced by consistent placeholders.

In summary: The Appellant sought judicial review by way of an order of certiorari quashing a decision of Company A made on 5 December 2023 granting retention permission to the Defendant for renovations and alterations to an existing house, septic tank and percolation area and provision of a gravel parking area and associated site works at a site described in the record (hereafter "the site" in The Town).

Relevant planning history set out in the record includes:

• On 28 November 2003 Company B granted permission for certain works relating to a house on part of the larger landholding; that 2003 permission did not relate to the particular structure the subject of these proceedings.
• On 1 March 2007 Company B refused permission for a renovation and extension project for three stated planning reasons (policies on reuse of rural dwellings, landscape/vulnerable location, and road safety due to an unsuitable lane).
• Applications in 2008 and 2021 were withdrawn or deemed withdrawn; an enforcement case existed by 2022 and an Enforcement Notice was issued by Company B on 4 August 2022.
• The Defendant submitted a retention planning application on 28 July 2022. Company B notified an intention to grant planning permission on 16 November 2022; the Appellant appealed that notification to Company A.
• Company A granted the retention permission on 5 December 2023 subject to conditions. The Appellant contended the decision was invalid and sought certiorari in the High Court.

The judgment was delivered by Judge Farrell on 19 September 2025. The Court dismissed the proceedings and ordered the matter to be listed on 13 October 2025 for any consequential orders.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the decision of Company A involved a material contravention of the Development Plan such that section 37(2)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 applied and whether the decision disclosed the statutory criteria and main reasons for any material contravention.
2. Whether Company A erred by failing to consider the alleged unauthorised residential use and/or short-term lettings (Airbnb) and whether the Board wrongly treated the application as retention of a pre-existing residential use rather than as an application for a new house.
3. Whether the Defendant complied with Article 22 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (information accompanying applications) where retention of use or works was sought.
4. Whether Company A failed to have adequate regard to the Sustainable Rural Housing Development Guidelines as required by section 28 of the 2000 Act.
5. Whether the reasons given by Company A were legally sufficient, particularly in relation to addressing public observations and explaining any departure from previous decisions.
6. Whether the Appropriate Assessment (AA) screening was defective under Article 6(3) of the Habitats Directive and related domestic law, given proximity to a designated site (referred to in the opinion as "The Lake" SPA).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The decision materially contravened the Company B Development Plan 2022–2028 and the Board failed to set out statutory criteria and main reasons for any material contravention (alleged breach of s.37(2)(b)).
• The Board failed to properly consider (or at all consider) unauthorised residential use and short-term lettings; it wrongly treated the matter as retention of a pre-existing residential use rather than a new dwelling.
• The Defendant failed to provide required particulars under Article 22 (statement of existing use and particulars of proposed retained use), rendering the application defective.
• The Board failed to have regard to the Sustainable Rural Housing Development Guidelines.
• The Board failed to address public observations and did not give sufficient reasons for rejecting submissions.
• The AA screening was inadequate or flawed in relation to the proximity and alleged hydrological connection to the designated site ("The Lake" SPA), and the decision lacked appropriate scientific analysis and explicit reasons dispelling doubt about effects on conservation objectives.

Company A's / Board's Position (as recorded by the Court)

• Section 37(2)(b) did not apply because the planning authority (Company B) did not refuse permission on the ground of material contravention; the Board was therefore not constrained by that provision and could grant permission provided the grant was consistent with proper planning and sustainable development.
• The Board (and its Inspector) had considered the planning history and the evidence and reasonably concluded there was a pre-existing residential use that had not been abandoned; the application was therefore appropriately treated as retention/refurbishment rather than a new dwelling application.
• The Board found that Article 22 sub-article (4)(b) (relating to material change of use) did not apply where the Board concluded there was no material change of use.
• Reasons provided were sufficient on the main issues; the Board generally adopted the Inspector's report and added a condition (condition 5) preventing certain otherwise-exempt development within the curtilage without prior permission.
• Regarding AA screening, the available material included a Site Suitability Test Report; the Council and the Inspector concluded AA was not required and no adequate evidence was put before the Board to demonstrate a hydrological link or a lacuna in the screening.

Defendant's Position (as recorded)

• The Defendant provided evidence (including occupation between 2008–2019 and records of works) supporting a conclusion of prior residential use; any prior short-term letting activity had ceased and retention permission for that use was not sought.
• The Defendant relied on the Site Suitability Test Report for the septic system/percolation area and contended that necessary information to enable AA screening was before the decision-makers.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded ground-by-ground. The reasoning below follows the sequence and content set out in the opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond the text.

Material contravention (section 37(2)(b))

The Court held that section 37(2)(b) applies only where a planning authority has refused permission on the grounds that the proposed development materially contravenes the development plan. Because Company B did not refuse permission on that basis here, section 37(2)(b) was inapplicable and the Board was not statutorily constrained by it. The Board nonetheless had to ensure that any grant was consistent with proper planning and sustainable development, which it did in its assessment. The Appellant's complaint that the Board failed to state whether the statutory criteria in s.37(2)(b) were met therefore had no application on these facts.

Whether the Board erred in treating the application as retention of a pre-existing residential use

The Court treated this as the central merits dispute. It reviewed the Inspector's report and the material before Company A and concluded that the Inspector and Board had evidence to support a conclusion of a pre-existing residential use (including evidence of occupation between 2008 and 2019 and correspondence indicating an intention to retain residential use). The Court emphasised legal principles:

• Disrepair alone does not prove abandonment of a use; abandonment requires an unequivocal act or evidence of intent to abandon.
• The onus of proving abandonment rests on the party alleging it; the Appellant had not discharged that onus.

Accordingly, the Board's evaluative factual judgment — preferring the Defendant's evidence over the Appellant's submissions — was within the bounds of reasonableness and law. The Court rejected the submission that the Board ignored relevant evidence and concluded the complaint was a merits disagreement that did not amount to unlawfulness.

Article 22 (information for change/retention of use)

The Court noted Article 22(4)(b) requires particulars where a planning application concerns a material change of use. Because the Board decided there was no material change of use, Article 22(4)(b) did not apply. The Court distinguished authorities where Article 22 issues were engaged and held that, on the facts before the Board, the Article 22 complaint was misconceived.

Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines and section 28 duty

The Court explained that the duty to have regard to section 28 Guidelines applies where the Guidelines are material to the facts of the application. Because the Board concluded this was refurbishment of an existing house (not new housing), the Sustainable Rural Housing Development Guidelines (which address new rural housing) were not materially applicable. The Appellant's complaint therefore amounted to a merits-based disagreement rather than an error of law.

Reasons and engagement with submissions

The Court applied established principles on reasons: affected persons are entitled to know the main reasons for a decision and to have sufficient information to consider appeal or review. However, the reasons obligation does not require a point-by-point reply to all submissions, only an adequate explanation of the main reasons on the main issues and engagement with relevant submissions. The Court found the Board had provided adequate reasons—principally by adopting the Inspector's report and explaining the conclusion that prior residential use had not been abandoned—and that the Appellant was not entitled to more detailed narrative.

Appropriate Assessment screening

The Court analysed the AA ground by reference to the evidential burden: it is for the Appellant to demonstrate that AA screening was defective or that there was a lacuna in the screening material. The Appellant asserted a hydrological connection between the site and the designated site ("The Lake") via a nearby stream, but provided no evidence to establish that connection or potential impacts. The Council had before it a Site Suitability Test Report concerning the septic installation and concluded AA was not required; that assessment was not successfully challenged on the record. The Court held the Appellant had not discharged the onus to show a defect in AA screening.

Other procedural/contentions not pleaded or properly raised

The Court refused to decide matters that fell outside the grounds on which leave to seek judicial review had been granted. It noted several arguments were either not pleaded or not put before Company A and therefore could not form the basis of certiorari relief in this proceeding.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court dismissed the proceedings and refused to quash the decision of Company A granting retention permission to the Defendant (order dismissing the proceedings).

Implications:

• The direct practical consequence is that the planning permission (retention permission) granted by Company A on 5 December 2023 remains effective, subject to the conditions imposed by the Board (including the specific condition preventing certain otherwise-exempt development within the curtilage without prior permission).
• The Court considered the Appellant's complaints to be largely merits-based or not supported by the necessary evidential material; no finding of illegality or procedural unfairness was made that would invalidate the Board's decision.
• The judgment does not create a new principle of law beyond the application and reconciliation of existing authorities; the Court applied established principles on material contravention, abandonment of use, the scope of Article 22, the duty to consider section 28 Guidelines when material, the required standard of reasons, and the evidential burden in AA challenges.
• The Court listed the matter for 13 October 2025 for any application for consequential orders.

Note: This summary reproduces only the matters expressly set out in the provided opinion and adheres to the instruction not to invent or infer facts not contained in that text. All names and locations in the original opinion have been replaced by consistent placeholders.