Cronin (Readymix) Ltd -v- An Bord Pleanála & ors [2017] IESC 36 (30 May 2017)

Cronin (Readymix) Ltd -v- An Bord Pleanála & ors [2017] IESC 36 (30 May 2017)

An extension to a structure, such as the enlargement of a concrete yard at a quarry, does not fall within the exemption for 'maintenance, improvement or other alteration' under s.4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The High Court erred in holding otherwise. The exemption is not determined solely by the purpose or lack of visual impact, and the legislative intent is not to exempt all works subject only to appearance. Extensions are not exempted development under s.4(1)(h).

Citation
[2017] IESC 36
Parties
Respondent: Michael Cronin (Readymix) Ltd; Appellant: An Bord Pleanála; Notice Party: Kerry County Council; Notice Party: Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
30 May 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Exempted Development, Interpretation of Planning and Development Act 2000, Section 4(1)(h), Extension Vs. Alteration or Improvement, Onus of Proof in Planning Exemptions
Planning Law Administrative Law Exempted Development Interpretation of Planning and Development Act 2000 Section 4(1)(h) Extension Vs. Alteration or Improvement Onus of Proof in Planning Exemptions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Cronin (Readymix) Ltd

Respondent

An Bord Pleanála

Appellant

Kerry County Council

Notice Party

Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the extension of a concrete yard at a quarry constitutes exempted development under s.4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in its interpretation of 'maintenance, improvement or other alteration' in s.4(1)(h)
  3. 3 Whether the purpose or effect of the works determines exemption status

Ratio Decidendi

An extension to a structure, such as the enlargement of a concrete yard at a quarry, does not fall within the exemption for 'maintenance, improvement or other alteration' under s.4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The High Court erred in holding otherwise. The exemption is not determined solely by the purpose or lack of visual impact, and the legislative intent is not to exempt all works subject only to appearance. Extensions are not exempted development under s.4(1)(h).

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • High Court decision overturned
  • Board's interpretation of s.4(1)(h) upheld