Massey v An Bord Pleanala & Ors [No. 2] (Approved) [2025] IEHC 206 (11 April 2025)

Massey v An Bord Pleanala & Ors [No. 2] (Approved) [2025] IEHC 206 (11 April 2025)

The application for permission should have been made by the same entity as at pre-application stage, but this is a directory requirement and not jurisdictional; no prejudice resulted and certiorari is disproportionate. The Board's AA screening and EIA were adequate and rationally based on expert evidence; no defect was demonstrated. Declaratory relief is appropriate for the technical non-compliance, but the substantive challenge fails.

Citation
[2025] IEHC 206
Parties
Applicant: Paddy Massey; First Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents: Ireland and the Attorney General, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage; Notice Party: Curns Energy Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 April 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused; declaration granted for technical non-compliance; no order for certiorari; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Strategic Infrastructure Development, Appropriate Assessment, Birds Directive, Habitats Directive, Environmental Impact Assessment, Public Participation, Conservation Objectives
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law EU Law Strategic Infrastructure Development Appropriate Assessment Birds Directive Habitats Directive +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paddy Massey

Applicant

An Bord Pleanála

First Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage

Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents

Curns Energy Limited

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the planning application was invalid due to non-compliance with pre-application requirements under the Planning and Development Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to properly screen for Appropriate Assessment regarding impacts on Blackwater Callows SPA and Whooper Swan
  3. 3 Whether the Board failed to ensure adequate Environmental Impact Assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission should have been made by the same entity as at pre-application stage, but this is a directory requirement and not jurisdictional; no prejudice resulted and certiorari is disproportionate. The Board's AA screening and EIA were adequate and rationally based on expert evidence; no defect was demonstrated. Declaratory relief is appropriate for the technical non-compliance, but the substantive challenge fails.

Court Disposition

Application refused; declaration granted for technical non-compliance; no order for certiorari; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Declaration that the application for permission for development under section 37E of the Planning and Development Act 2000 should have been made by the 'prospective applicant' under sections 37A to 37D.
  • Costs reserved for further determination.