High Court dismisses planning application for lack of standing, proper pleading, and proof of regulatory breach.

[2026] IEHC 281

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

[H.JR.2024.0001016]

IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 50, 50A AND 50B OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

ACT 2000

BETWEEN

MICHAEL DUFFY

APPLICANT

AND

AN COIMISIÚN PLEANÁLA

RESPONDENT

AND

CAHERMORRIS DEVELOPMENTS LTD

NOTICE PARTY

Date of impugned decision: 17 June 2024

Date proceedings commenced: 9 August 2024

Date of main hearing: 27 April 2026

Date draft judgment circulated: 29 April 2026

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Friday 8 May 2026

1. In Concerned Residents of Treascon and Clondoolusk v. An Bord Pleanála & Ors. [2024] IESC

28, [2024] 7 JIC 0402 (Unreported, Supreme Court, 4 July 2024), the Supreme Court per Murray J.

at paras. 39 et seq. (O'Donnell C.J., Woulfe, Collins and Donnelly JJ. concurring) emphasised the

point that an applicant must plead the issues adequately. In Grace and Sweetman v. An Bord

Pleanála [2017] IESC 10, [2020] 3 I.R. 286, the Supreme Court held at 8.8 that “a person who

cannot show proximity to a proposed wind farm and did not participate in the process is unlikely to

have standing to make an argument more properly raised by a person more directly affected. In

our view a challenger who has not previously participated and cannot show any direct personal

prejudice must satisfy the leave judge that the point being made is one directed solely to the purpose

of the special protection of the site.” In Amariei v. Chief Appeals Officer [2026] IESC 22 (Unreported,

Supreme Court, 25 March 2026) at para. 96 per Donnelly J., the Supreme Court took the opportunity

to reemphasise that “the onus of proof must lie on an applicant for judicial review”. It is the function

of a trial court to apply these principles here. While I appreciate the sincerity of the applicant as a

litigant in person with a bona fide general interest in the environmentally correct treatment of

wastewater across the country, the legal question here is whether he has adequately pleaded the

case and has standing to advance it notwithstanding a lack of participation in the process and a lack

of proximity to the site, and if he has standing and has correctly pleaded his case, whether he has

in fact discharged the onus of proof to show that the decision in invalid.

Geographical context

2. The project (https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/317614) comprises a composite

application seeking retention and completion of a previously approved supermarket and fuel filling

station development. It includes (i) retention of the completed supermarket development previously

permitted under reg. ref. no. 20/384 (ABP‑308213‑20), including first‑floor staff room, meeting and

plant rooms, external plant, elevations, canopy, trolley rack, building fit‑out, signage, hard and soft

landscaping and a surface car park; (ii) retention of works associated with the fuel filling station

previously permitted under reg. ref. no. 19/1699 (ABP‑306850‑20), including site accesses, forecourt

layout, boundary wall, footpaths, lighting, landscaping and associated works; (iii) retention of a

two‑storey building (gross floor area 514 m2) to serve the fuel filling station previously permitted

under reg. ref. no. 20/1799 (ABP‑310047‑21), comprising at ground floor level a retail unit, deli and

seating area with ancillary facilities, and at first floor level overflow seating, toilets, staff facilities

and storage; (iv) retention of water and wastewater connections on the R358 College Road (Irish

Water Ref. CDS1900364701) serving the supermarket and fuel filling station; (v) completion of the

fuel filling station including construction of pump islands, pumps, forecourt canopy, delivery

set‑down area, service bay fit‑out, tank fill points, final surfacing, and signage, all in accordance with

earlier permissions; and (vi) the omission of condition 3 of permission reg. ref. no. 06/3886 (ABP

PL07.221318), as extended under subsequent permissions. The development is located at

Treanrevagh, College Road, Mountbellew, County Galway in the vicinity of the following:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/tzVDuGtPbf3jkFrr8.

Facts

3. The applicant challenges the decision of the commission, made by way of order (ABP-

317614-23) dated 17 June 2024 – pursuant to, inter alia, s. 37 of the Planning and Development

Act 2000 (the 2000 Act) and the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (the 2001 regulations)

– to grant retention permission and planning permission, subject to 17 conditions to the developer

for the specified development.

4. In 2007, planning permission (appeal ref. no. 07.221318) (the parent permission) was

granted by the commission for, inter alia, the demolition of a convent/school building and detached

house and the construction of a mixed-use development consisting of retail units and residential

units (including nine apartments and 37 houses) on a site at Treanrevagh, College Road,

Mountbellew, County Galway (the wider site).

5. As noted by the commission’s inspector (§4.0 et seq.), there has been a series of planning

permissions granted since – including numerous extensions to the duration of the parent permission

and permissions which amend the commercial development on the site. In respect of the latter,

these include planning permission for a fuel filling station (ABP-306850-20), planning permission for

a supermarket (ABP-308213-20), and planning permission for a filling station shop/deli (ABP-

310047-21).

6. The application for retention/planning permission in this case was concerned with the

southern portion of the wider site – the area outlined in red in the “Site Layout Plan Overall”. Same

concerns limited development, including an Aldi supermarket and fuel filling station (in contrast to

the significantly larger development the subject of the parent permission), and sought inter alia:

(i) retention permission for the works carried out after 31 December 2021 and

permitted by reg. ref. no. 20/384 (ABP-308213-20) – including staff room, meeting

room and plant room at first floor level, external plant and elevations, canopy, trolley

rack, building fit-out, signage, soft and hard landscaping, surface car park, and

completion of the previously approved supermarket;

(ii) to retain works at the fuel filling station permitted by reg. ref. no. 19/1699 (ABP-

306850-20) – including the formation of the site accesses and forecourt layout, the

construction of a boundary wall and footpaths, lighting, soft and hard landscaping,

and all associated works;

(iii) to retain a two-storey building (514 m2 gross floor area), approved under reg. ref.

no. 20/1799 (ABP-310047-21), which serves the fuel filling station – the said

building comprises: (i) a retail shop (100 m2 net retail floor area), (ii) a hot food/deli

counter and seating area (126 m2 total floor area) to facilitate the sale of hot and

cold food for consumption on and off the premises, along with a cold room, store,

lift and ATM all at ground floor level and (iii) overflow seating, toilets, a staff room,

cash office and storage at first floor level and all associated works; and

(iv) to retain connections to water and wastewater infrastructure at R358 College Road.

7. The application for planning permission sought, inter alia:

(i) Permission for the construction of pump islands, pumps and a forecourt canopy,

delivery set down area, service bay fit-out, tank offset fill delivery points, the

placement of final macadam layer and forecourt surface, and main ID signage and

fascia signage to complete a fuel filling station previously approved under

permissions reg. ref. no. 19/1699 (ABP-306850-20) and reg. ref. no. 20/1799 (ABP-

310047-21).

(ii) Permission to omit condition 3 of permission reg. ref. no. 06/3886 (ABP

PL07.221318), as extended pursuant to reg. ref. nos. 12/1428, 17/1699 and

21/2091. Condition 3, inter alia, limits the occupation of any building or dwelling

until the onsite wastewater treatment plant has been commissioned.

8. The developer lodged a planning application with the planning authority, Galway County

Council, in or around 4 May 2023 (planning reg. ref. no. 23/177). The application documentation

included a cover letter/report which addressed the planning history of the site and water/wastewater

connection agreed with Uisce Éireann (UE), a copy of the site notice, an appropriate assessment

(AA) screening report, UE connection orders and a series of drawings, including a drawing showing

the connection to public water/wastewater sought to be retained.

9. Whilst submissions/observations were made to the council on the application, including by

Mr Barry McCormack, the applicant did not participate in the planning process before the council.

10. At first instance, the council granted planning permission for the development, subject to

conditions. The council determined that an environmental impact assessment (EIA) was not required

and screened out the development for the purposes of AA.

11. The council’s decision was the subject matter of a number of third-party appeals to the

commission – lodged on 19 July 2023. The applicant did not participate in the appeal process in his

own personal capacity – rather, he acted as an agent for a third party who lodged an appeal, namely

Mr McCormack.

12. The developer responded to the various appeals lodged with the commission and addressed

the grounds of appeal advanced.

13. The commission appointed an inspector to consider the appeals and prepare a report on

same. In this respect, the inspector carried out a site inspection on 3 May 2024 and thereafter

prepared a report, dated 21 May 2024, which recommended that permission be granted for the

proposed development, subject to conditions.

14. The commission’s direction (BD-016568-24) (ABP-317614-23), dated 13 June 2024,

outlined that the commission considered the submissions on file and decided to “grant permission

generally in accordance with the inspector’s recommendation” for specified reasons and

considerations.

15. The impugned commission order (ABP-317614-23), dated 17 June 2024, detailed that:

“Having regard to the Galway County Development Plan 2022-2028, and the scale and

nature of the proposed development, and the pattern of existing and permitted development

in the area, it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below,

the proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of property in the

vicinity, would not be prejudicial to public health and would be acceptable in terms of traffic

safety and visual amenity. The proposed development would, therefore, be in accordance

with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.”

16. The commission’s order included a series of conditions – including condition 2 (which

disapplied condition 3 of the parent permission), condition 6 and condition 13.

Procedural history

17. The applicant issued his statement of grounds and verifying affidavit on 9 August 2024, and

was granted leave to apply for judicial review on 9 September 2024.

18. The applicant issued his notice of motion, returnable to 14 October 2024.

19. The commission issued its opposition papers on 28 October 2025.

20. The notice party has not participated in these proceedings (no opposition papers have been

filed).

21. On 12 January 2026, the matter was given a hearing date of 27 April 2026.

22. The matter was listed for callover on 20 April 2026.

23. The matter was listed for hearing on 27 April 2026. Judgment was reserved at the end of

that hearing. I would like to record my thanks to the applicant and to all of the lawyers involved on

the opposing side for their unfailingly courteous, professional and helpful assistance. As I have

previously sought to make clear, insofar as any points advanced are not being accepted in this or

any other given judgment, that is solely to do with the inherent merits of such points and is no

reflection on those making or instructed to convey such points, a distinction that most certainly

should be, and I believe generally is in fact, self-evident to all concerned.

24. On 29 April 2026, a draft of the present judgment was sent to the parties to give an

opportunity to identify any errors. The rules of engagement in such a situation are that the draft is

without prejudice to the right of the court ultimately to issue a judgment in whatever form or with

whatever content it considers appropriate.

25. Any comments must be emailed to the court and uploaded to ShareFile in writing by the

notified deadline, and should not be to reargue the substance (submissions to that effect will be

disregarded) but are confined to matters such as:

(i) informing the court as to whether a formal judgment is required, and if so on what

issues;

(ii) informing the court as to whether a judgment might be oral or written or partly in

both modes;

(iii) any typographical, factual or legal errors in the decision;

(iv) any redaction of personal information that the party wishes to request;

(v) in the event that the court proposes to place pivotal reliance on any authority or

material not previously adverted to, as opposed to where such material merely

reinforces a point that the court was making in any event, any comment as to why

such material should not lead to the proposed conclusion; identifying points that the

court proposes to address but that the parties consider it unnecessary to address;

(vi) requesting the court to decide a point that, while unnecessary to decide, is one the

party considers could beneficially be decided;

(vii) identifying significant procedural, factual or legal points that the party considers that

the court was required to address but has not addressed or not provided reasons

for; and

(viii) any other suggestions as to the wording (as opposed to substance) of the decision

if the proposed wording causes any significant issue for a party for any identified

reason.

26. It is then entirely a matter for the court as to whether to list the matter for mention, or

whether to simply give judgment with or without amendment to respond to any such comments or

for any other reason that appears appropriate to the court. Any judgment may be given without

further notice following the expiry of the specified period, whether comments are made or not. That

period will not be extended save in exceptional circumstances. All parties involved are required to

positively confirm to the court the position including if they have no observations on the draft

legitimately falling within the foregoing parameters. Overall the draft judgment procedure is a

concession which parties can engage with but must do so with immediate dispatch, discipline and

focus – it is not the opening of a new phase of the litigation that gives rise to “an entitlement to

elaborate procedures at every point” (to use a phrase of O’Donnell C.J. (Dunne, Charleton and Baker

JJ. concurring) in O’Sullivan v. Health Service Executive [2023] IESC 11 (Unreported, Supreme

Court, 10 May 2023) at para. 39); and still less should the procedure invite the perhaps “serious

error, to which lawyers are prone, to approach any such case on the tacit assumption that only

procedures which approximate to a criminal trial are fair, and anything which departs from that is

somehow dubious” (O’Donnell J. in O'Sullivan v. Sea Fisheries Protection Authority [2017] IESC 75,

[2017] 3 I.R. 751, [2018] 1 I.L.R.M. 245, 780).

27. Draft judgments are not public domain materials and, while they can be shared between the

lawyers concerned and their clients, subject to the following, it is inappropriate for any person to

refer to them for any purpose other than to assist the court in relation to the finalisation of the

formal judgment. Therefore anyone with information as to the text, content or proposed outcome

of any draft is required not to publish or transmit such information to others save solely by way of

private transmission for the legitimate purposes of assisting in the finalisation of the judgment and

subject to a similar restriction on any recipient. Trial participants should take reasonable steps to

keep drafts confidential. On this topic, see Attorney General v. Crosland (No. 2) [2021] UKSC 58,

[2022] 1 W.L.R. 367, [24/01/2022] T.L.R. 1 which discusses why restriction on publication of draft

judgments is in the interests of the administration of justice; see also Baigent v. Random House

Group Ltd [2006] EWHC 1131 (Ch), [2006] 5 WLUK 45, (2006) 150 S.J.L.B. 603 (Smith J.); R.

(Counsel General for Wales) v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy

[2022] EWCA Civ 181, [2022] 1 W.L.R. 1915, [2022] 4 All E.R. 599 (Sir Geoffrey Vos MR; Davies

and Dingemans LJJ. concurring); Public Institution for Social Security v. Banque Pictet & Cie SA and

others [2022] EWCA Civ 368, [2022] 3 WLUK 291, [2022] B.L.R. 349 (Carr LJ; Jackson and Simler

LJJ. concurring); Itkin v. Wood [2023] JRC 101 (Unreported, Royal Court of Jersey, 22 June 2023).

The contents of this paragraph constitute an immediately effective direction of the court to the

parties and anyone having notice of the draft judgment with effect from the date of circulation of

the draft.

28. The deadline for such comments from the parties was to be 16:00 on Tuesday 5 May 2026.

Neither of the participating parties had any comments.

Relief sought

29. The reliefs sought are as follows:

“1. By virtue of Order 84 Rule 20 to grant me the relief of leave to apply for Judicial

Review based on the facts listed in this grounding statement, my verifying affidavit and

exhibits herein.

2. Such declaration(s) of the legal rights and/or legal position of the applicant and

persons similarly situated and/or of the legal duties and/or legal position of the Respondent

as the Court considers appropriate.

3. An order of certiorari overturning the Order made by the Respondent on the 17th

day of June 2024 to grant permission and retention permission in appeal ABP-317614-23

(planning application 23/177).

4. A declaration that all development on the subject land is unauthorised development

by virtue of condition No. 3 of the Respondent’s decision in PL 07.221318.

5. A declaration that the Respondent failed to confirm compliance with conditions of

permission 21/2091 or to recognise that the works carried out after 31st December 2021

are unauthorised development requiring regularisation not included in the application.

6. A declaration that the Respondent erred regarding unauthorised development and

failed to identify that an unauthorised development complaint was made by the Applicant on

the 26th July 2023.

7. A declaration that the prior connection of a foul sewer to public wastewater

infrastructure at R358 College Road is unauthorised development.

8. A declaration that the red line boundary does not include the unauthorised foul sewer

which is sought to be retained and therefore cannot be considered in this appeal.

9. A declaration that the Respondent failed to recognise that by virtue of s.34 (12) that

the Planning Authority was precluded from validating and, thereafter, considering the

retention application 23/177, in circumstances where an environment impact assessment

and/or an appropriate assessment was required in respect of likely significant impacts from

the connection of the foul sewer on a connected European site or sites.

10. A declaration that the Respondent was precluded from considering a retention

permission for a connection to public wastewater infrastructure at R358 College Road in

circumstances where an environment impact assessment and/or an appropriate assessment

was required in respect of likely significant impacts from the connection of the foul sewer on

a connected European site or sites.

11. A Declaration that the Respondent did not consider, or properly consider, its

jurisdiction to carry out an appeal, with particular regard to Articles 19(1) (c), 19(4), 23(1)

(a), 26(3), 26(4) of S.I. No. 600/2001 - Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 as

amended, and sections 34(1) and 34(12) of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 as

amended.

12. A declaration that the Respondent did not have regard, or proper regard, to 3rd

party submissions which identified issues which constitute the grounds for this application.

13. A declaration that this application and appeal is an impermissible collateral attack

on conditions in permission (06/3886) PL 07.221318 and 21/2091.

14. A Declaration that the costs of the proceedings are covered by s.50B of the 2000

Act or should be measured on a not prohibitively expensive (‘NPE’) basis or, in the

alternative, a declaration that section 3 of the Environment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act

2011 apply to these proceedings.

15. Such further Orders as the Court deems appropriate.

16. Liberty to apply.

17. The costs of the within proceedings.”

Grounds of challenge

30. The core grounds of challenge are as follows:

“Core Grounds:

1. Domestic Law Grounds:

1. The impugned decision is unlawful because the Respondent failed to carry out its

statutory duty to correctly assess the application for Environmental Impact Assessment

and/or Appropriate Assessment in accordance with s. 172(b), s.173(1), 177U(1),(2),

(4),(6),(8),(9), 177V(1),(2),(3) PDA, Regulations 4,5,6,8 of S.I. No. 272 of 2009 EUROPEAN

COMMUNITIES ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES (SURFACE WATERS) REGULATIONS 2009,

R42 S.I. No. 477 of 2011 EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (BIRDS AND NATURAL HABITATS)

REGULATIONS 2011, R4&5 S.I. No. 272/2009 — European Communities Environmental

Objectives (Surface Waters) Regulations.

2. The impugned decision is unlawful because the Respondent failed to consider, or

properly consider, whether the existing wastewater loading, and the proposed loading,

required Environmental Impact Assessment and/or Appropriate Assessment given the

recognised hydraulic connectivity with European sites through the wastewater network. If,

as I believe, EIA and/or AA is required then, by virtue of s.34 (12), s.37 (7) and s.37 (8) of

the PDA, the decision maker must invalidate the application. This argument is strongly

supported by the decision of the Respondent to include condition No. 3 in the parent

permission PL 07.221318.

3. The impugned decision is unlawful because the Respondent neglected to assess the

wastewater loading or the impacts of that wastewater loading on the environment. The

Respondent failed in its duty prescribed in Regulation 43 of S.I. No. 684/2007 - Waste Water

Discharge (Authorisation) Regulations 2007 which mandates consideration of proposals

involving wastewater loadings by the Respondent (see regulation 43 at paragraph 15

herein).

4. The impugned decision is irrational in that the Respondent considered matters which

are irrelevant and did not consider relevant and important planning and environmental

matters raised by 3rd parties. The Respondent failed to have mandatory regard, or proper

regard, to 3rd party submissions as required in s.34 (3) PDA.

Core Grounds:

2. European Law Grounds:

5. The impugned decision is invalid because it contravenes A1,A4,A14 of the Water

Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and A1,A3,A4,A6,A11, of the EIA Directive 2011/92/EU as

amended by DIRECTIVE 2014/52/EU and A6(3) Habitats Directive 92 / 43 / EEC.

Core Grounds:

3. Legislative Validity Grounds

6. The impugned decision Exhibit MD1 is unlawful because the application is not in

compliance with Regulations 19(1) (c), 19(4), 23(1) (a), 26(3), 26(4) of S.I. No. 600/2001

- Planning and Development Regulations, 2001 as amended (PDR). Compliance with

statutory regulations is mandatory and non-compliance precludes a planning decision as

prescribed in s.34 (1) Planning and Development Act 2000 (PDA). The Respondent neglected

to consider, or properly consider, its jurisdiction to carry out an appeal in circumstances

where the original application is an invalid application.

7. The appeal decision of the Respondent is invalid as all development on the

application site is subject to condition No. 3 of a previous appeal decision in PL 07.221318

(the ‘parent permission’) Exhibit MD2 which precluded development until the planning

authority confirms in writing the commencement of works to upgrade the wastewater

treatment plant. S.160 and s.162 PDA apply to the unauthorised connection to the public

wastewater sewer.

8. The impugned decision is invalid because it is an impermissible collateral challenge

to an extant planning decision PL 07.221318. It is an abuse of process. If the Respondent

wished to ‘omit Condition No. 3 of permission Reg. Ref. No. 06/3886 (ABP PL07.221318 as

extended pursuant to Reg. Ref. Nos. 12/1428, 17/1699 and 21/2091’ it should have

judicially reviewed the original decision or any of the three s.42 extension of durations

decided in the interim. Exhibit MD3.”

31. The statement of case states that the following are not being pursued: reliefs 5 & 6 and

European law grounds 5, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. Also, references to EIA are not being

pursued and thus can be ignored.

The impugned decision

32. The impugned decision involves 6 elements – 4 elements of retention of previous

developments, one new grant of permission and the amendment of a previous grant.

33. It provides as follows:

“An Bord Pleanala

Board Order ABP-317614-23

Planning and Development Acts 2000 to 2022 Planning Authority: Galway County Council

Planning Register Reference Number: 23/177

Appeal by Liam Madden of Vitruvius Hibernicus, Convent Road, Longford, County Longford

and by Barry McCormack care of Michael J. Duffy of 1 Clos na hEaglaise, Kilfenora, County

Clare against the decision made on the 27th day of June, 2023 by Galway County Council to

grant subject to conditions a permission to Cahermorris Developments Limited care of Kieran

O'Malley and Company Limited of 2 Priory Office Park, Stillorgan Road, Blackrock, County

Dublin in accordance with plans and particulars lodged with the said Council:

Proposed Development: (1) Retention of works carried out since 31 December 2021

including the construction of the staff room, meeting room and plant room at first floor level

(121.5 square metres gross floor area), external plant and elevations, canopy, trolley rack,

building fit-out, signage, soft and hard landscaping, surface car park and all associated works

to complete the supermarket previously approved at register reference number 20/384

(ABP-308213-20); (2) Retention of works carried out since 31 December 2021 at the fuel

filling station including the formation of the site accesses and forecourt layout, the

construction of a boundary wall and footpaths, lighting, soft and hard landscaping and all

associated works previously approved at permission register reference number 19/1699

(ABP-306850-20); (3) Retention of a two-storey building (514 square metres gross floor

area to serve the fuel filling station comprising (i) a retail shop (100 square metres net retail

floor area); (ii) hot food/deli counter and seating area (126 square metres total floor area)

to include the sale of hot and cold food for consumption on and off the premises, cold room,

store, lift and ATM all at ground floor level; (iii) overflow seating, toilets, staff room, cash

office and storage at first floor level and all associated works previously approved at register

reference number 20/1799 (ABP-310047-21); (4) Retention of the connections to water and

wastewater infrastructure at R358 College Road (pursuant to Irish Water Connection

Reference CDS1900364701) to serve the supermarket and fuel filling station; (5) Permission

for the construction of works including the installation of the pump islands, pumps and

forecourt canopy, delivery set down area, service bay fit out, tank offset fill delivery points,

the placement of final macadam layer and forecourt surface, main ID signage and fascia

signage, and all associated works necessary to complete the fuel filling station previously

approved at permissions register reference number 19/1699 (ABP-306850-20) and register

reference number 20/1799 (ABP-310047-21); and (6) to omit condition number 3 of

permission register refence number 06/3886 (ABP PL 07.221318) as extended pursuant to

register reference numbers 12/1428, 17/1699 and 21/2091, all on an approximate 1.27

hectare site at Treanrevagh, Mountbellew, County Galway.

Decision

GRANT permission for the above proposed development in accordance with the said plans

and particulars based on the reasons and considerations under and subject to the conditions

set out below.

Reasons and Considerations

Having regard to the Galway County Development Plan 2022 -2028, and the scale and nature

of the proposed development, and the pattern of existing and permitted development in the

area, it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the

proposed development would not seriously injure the amenities of property in the vicinity,

would not be prejudicial to public health and would be acceptable in terms of traffic safety

and visual amenity. The proposed development would, therefore, be in accordance with the

proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

Conditions

1. The development shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the plans

and particulars lodged with the application, except as may otherwise be required in order to

comply with the following conditions. Where such conditions require details to be agreed

with the planning authority, the developer shall agree such details in writing with the

planning authority prior to commencement of development and the development shall be

carried out and completed in accordance with the agreed particulars.

Reason: In the interest of clarity.

2. (a) This Order relates to the retention works already carried out and the

proposed works illustrated by drawing reference DWG.3 and entitled Proposed Site Layout

to be Retained and Completed and related plans and elevations, and the connections to

water and wastewater infrastructure at R358 set out within the ownership details illustrated

by drawing entitled Land Registry Compliant Map and detailed in drawing number 3021

entitled Proposed Site Layout proposed Drainage and Watermain Layout.

(b) Condition number 3 of permission granted under appeal reference number PL

07.221318/planning register reference number 06/3886 shall not apply to the elements of

the overall development proposed for retention and proposed development under this grant

of permission.

Reason: In the interest of clarity.

3. All lighting within the site shall be directed and cowled so as not to interfere with

passing traffic or the adjoining residential properties.

Reason: In the interest of residential amenity and traffic safety.

4. Details including samples of the materials, colours and textures of all the external

finishes to the proposed structures shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the

planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of protecting the character of the area.

5. A comprehensive boundary/entrance treatment and landscaping scheme shall be

submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority. This scheme shall include

the following: -

(a) details of boundary/entrance treatments along the southern boundary of the site

adjoining the public road, including heights, materials and finishes; and

(b) Details of boundary treatments and landscaping measures for the remainder of the

site.

Upon receipt of written agreement from the planning authority the developer shall fully

implement the approved details within six months unless otherwise agreed in writing with

the planning authority.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity and traffic safety.

6. Drainage arrangements, including the disposal of surface water, shall comply with

the requirements of the planning authority for such works and services. No surface water

from the proposed development, shall discharge onto the public road or adjoining properties.

Drainage details shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with the planning authority,

within six months of the date of this Order, and the developer shall submit written

confirmation, accompanied by photographs, to demonstrate that said works have been

satisfactorily undertaken.

Reason: To ensure adequate servicing of the development, and to prevent pollution.

7. The road works associated with the proposed development, including the setting out

of the entrances, paving and surface finishes, shall be carried out and completed in

accordance with the requirements of the planning authority. Pedestrian crossing facilities

shall be provided at all junctions. Prior to commencement of development, full details of

works to the public road and public realm shall be submitted to and agreed in writing with

the planning authority. All works shall be carried out at the developers' expense.

Reason: In the interest of traffic safety and orderly development.

8. Site development and building works shall be carried out only between the hours of

0800 to 1900 Mondays to Fridays inclusive, between 0800 hours to 1400 hours on Saturdays

and not at all on Sundays and public holidays. Deviation from these times will only be

allowed in exceptional circumstances where prior written approval has been received from

the planning authority.

Reason: In order to safeguard the residential amenities of property in the vicinity.

9. At least one Rapid EV charging point shall be provided at a suitable location within

the site and shall be operational prior to commencement of operation of the proposed filling

station. Details of the location of this facility shall be submitted to and agreed in writing

with the planning authority prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In order to provide for an appropriate standard of development.

10. The site shall be used as a petrol filling station and no part shall be used for the sale,

display, or repair of motor vehicles.

Reason: In the interest of protecting the amenities of the area.

!1. No advertisement or advertisement structure, other than those shown on the

drawings submitted with the application, shall be erected or displayed on the canopy on the

forecourt building or anywhere within the curtilage of the site, unless authorised by a further

grant of planning permission.

Reason: In the interest of visual amenity.

12. The hours of operation of petrol forecourt shall be between 0700 hours and 2300

hours.

Reason: In the interest of the residential amenities of property in the vicinity.

13. The developer shall enter into water and/or wastewater connection agreement(s)

with Uisce Eireann, prior to commencement of development.

Reason: In the interest of public health.

14. All service cables associated with the proposed development (such as electrical,

television, telephone and public lighting cables) shall be run underground within the site.

Reason: In the interest of the visual amenities of the area.

15. The construction of the development shall be managed in accordance with a

Construction Management Plan, which shall be submitted to, and agreed in writing with, the

planning authority prior to commencement of development. This plan shall provide details

of intended construction practice for the development, including noise management

measures and off-site disposal of construction/demolition waste.

Reason: In the interests of public safety and residential amenity.

16. Prior to commencement of development, a Resource Waste Management Plan

(RWMP) as set out in the EPA's Best Practice Guidelines for the Preparation of Resource and

Waste Management Plans for Construction and Demolition Projects (2021) shall be prepared

and submitted to the planning authority for written agreement. The RWMP shall include

specific proposals as to how the RWMP will be measured and monitored for effectiveness.

All records (including for waste and all resources) pursuant to the agreed RWMP shall be

made available for inspection at the site office at all times.

Reason: In the interest of reducing waste and encouraging recycling.

17. The developer shall pay to the planning authority a financial contribution in respect

of public infrastructure and facilities benefiting development in the area of the planning

authority that is provided or intended to be provided by or on behalf of the authority in

accordance with the terms of the Development Contribution Scheme made under section 48

of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. The contribution shall be paid

prior to commencement of development or in such phased payments as the planning

authority may facilitate and shall be subject to any applicable indexation provisions of the

Scheme at the time of payment. Details of the application of the terms of the Scheme shall

be agreed between the planning authority and the developer or, in default of such

agreement, the matter shall be referred to An Bord Pleanala to determine the proper

application of the terms of the Scheme.

Reason: It is a requirement of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, that a

condition requiring a contribution in accordance with the Development Contribution Scheme

made under section 48 of the Act be applied to the permission.”

Preliminary issues

34. The parties’ positions on preliminary issues as recorded in the statement of case are

summarised as follows:

“Applicant’s Position

29. None raised in the Statement of Grounds.

Commission’s Position

30. Issue 1: The Applicant lacks ‘sufficient interest’/standing to maintain these

proceedings and same should therefore be dismissed. The Applicant did not participate in

the planning process before the Council and has not explained this non-participation. The

Applicant was engaged as an agent for a third-party appeal – he cannot derive standing

from his principal. Otherwise, the Applicant made no submission to the Commission in his

own personal capacity and has not explained this omission. The Applicant does not reside

in proximity to the development and is not affected by same. The Applicant has not

demonstrated, in respect of the development, that he had/has legitimate interest in relation

to the protection of the environment or amenity insofar as same may be impacted by same.

31. Issue 2: Insofar as the within proceedings seek, in substance (via a series of

Declarations), this Honourable Court to find that the Developer is responsible for and/or has

carried out unauthorised development (see, for example Reliefs sought at §D(4)), this is not

permissible or appropriate – such relief can only be sought via proceedings under s.160 of

the PDA.

32. Issue 3: By way of general objection, the Applicant’s complaints are, in many

instances, not properly pleaded – comprising generic citations of Articles of various EU

Directives (see for example SoG, §12-§19) without making any attempt to plead/link same

to any infirmity in the Commission’s Decision. Equally, the complaints generally fail to refer

to the evidence actually before the Commission. For example, in the context of AA, no

reference is made to the Developer’s AA Screening Report – which supported the

Commission’s findings. This is perhaps best illustrated by the complete failure of the

Applicant to exhibit many of the documents relevant to the Commission’s Decision, including

the Developer’s application/appeal documents.”

35. Section 50(3) and (4) of the 2000 Act provides:

“(3) The Court shall not grant section 50 leave unless it is satisfied that—

(a) there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision or act concerned is

invalid or ought to be quashed,

(b) (i) the applicant has a sufficient interest in the matter which is the subject of the

application, or

(ii) where the decision or act concerned relates to a development identified in or

under regulations made under section 176, for the time being in force, as being

development which may have significant effects on the environment, the

applicant—

(I) is a body or organisation (other than a State authority, a public

authority or governmental body or agency) the aims or objectives of which

relate to the promotion of environmental protection,

(II) has, during the period of 12 months preceding the date of the

application, pursued those aims or objectives, and

(III) satisfies such requirements (if any) as a body or organisation, if it

were to make an appeal under section 37(4)(c), would have to satisfy by

virtue of section 37(4)(d)(iii) (and, for this purpose, any requirement

prescribed under section 37(4)(e)(iv) shall apply as if the reference in it to

the class of matter into which the decision, the subject of the appeal, falls

were a reference to the class of matter into which the decision or act, the

subject of the application for section 50 leave, falls), and

(c) the applicant has exhausted any available appeal procedures or any other administrative

remedy available to him or her in respect of the decision or act concerned.

(4) A sufficient interest for the purposes of subsection (3)(b)(i) is not limited to an interest

in land or other financial interest.”

36. Directive 2011/92/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 December 2011

on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment as

amended by directive 2014/52/EU (the EIA directive) does not protect wide access to justice for “the

public”, but only “the public concerned”, which it defines in art. 1(2)(e) as follows:

“‘public concerned’ means the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest

in, the environmental decision-making procedures referred to in Article 2(2). For the

purposes of this definition, non-governmental organisations promoting environmental

protection and meeting any requirements under national law shall be deemed to have an

interest”

37. Article 11 states (emphasis added):

“Article 11

1. Member States shall ensure that, in accordance with the relevant national legal system,

members of the public concerned:

(a) having a sufficient interest, or alternatively;

(b) maintaining the impairment of a right, where administrative procedural law of a Member

State requires this as a precondition;

have access to a review procedure before a court of law or another independent and impartial

body established by law to challenge the substantive or procedural legality of decisions,

acts or omissions subject to the public participation provisions of this Directive.

2. Member States shall determine at what stage the decisions, acts or omissions may be

challenged.

3. What constitutes a sufficient interest and impairment of a right shall be

determined by the Member States, consistently with the objective of giving the public

concerned wide access to justice. To that end, the interest of any non-governmental

organisation meeting the requirements referred to in Article 1(2) shall be deemed sufficient

for the purpose of point (a) of paragraph 1 of this Article. Such organisations shall also be

deemed to have rights capable of being impaired for the purpose of point (b) of paragraph

1 of this Article.

4. The provisions of this Article shall not exclude the possibility of a preliminary review

procedure before an administrative authority and shall not affect the requirement of

exhaustion of administrative review procedures prior to recourse to judicial review

procedures, where such a requirement exists under national law.

Any such procedure shall be fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive.

5. In order to further the effectiveness of the provisions of this Article, Member States shall

ensure that practical information is made available to the public on access to administrative

and judicial review procedures.”

38. This only applies to decisions subject to participation – that covers the substantive EIA, not

EIA screening as here.

39. The applicant has not challenged the validity of s. 50(3) by reference to the EIA directive

but even if he had that would not get off the ground in a mere screening case.

40. The applicant’s response in relation to standing is to rely on the following:

(i) lack of a lawful site notice;

(ii) making submissions in other cases;

(iii) the Aarhus Convention;

(iv) the fact that he says he uses the River Suck water body downriver for recreational

purposes;

(v) the Grace and Sweetman decision; and

(vi) his general interest in municipal wastewater treatment plants.

41. The site notice issue could be a valid basis for non-participation if there was an illegality in

the site notice and a proven causal link between that and the failure to make submissions, but there

is no illegality so this excuse does not arise (see further below). Nor is there satisfactory evidence

that would have established that he would have seen the notice but for the issue complained of.

42. Grace and Sweetman v. An Bord Pleanála [2017] IESC 10, [2020] 3 I.R. 286 and the

statutory scheme envisaged by s. 50(3) of the 2000 Act can be summarised by saying that standing

is conferred by:

(i) participation in the process (including where the applicant would have participated

but for a failure to give due notice of the administrative procedure);

(ii) being affected by the project having regard to factors such as proximate distance

from it and/or the nature of the project or the need for special protection of the

receiving environment; or

(iii) being an environmental NGO.

43. The applicant clearly satisfies none of these elements. If his various arguments were to be

accepted as conferring standing we would be very close to an actio popularis.

44. The use of the River Suck – 133 km long – in some unspecified way is far too remote from

any impacts of any single project. In any event there is no meaningful evidential foundation for this

point.

45. One particularly sub-optimal feature of this case is that the commission’s order specifically

records that the applicant’s role was acting on behalf of the appellants against the planning authority

decision. The reference is to the appellants “care of” the very applicant who now seeks relief by

way of judicial review. It is generally (and here) inappropriate for an agent to turn around and seek

to assert a substantive entitlement to challenge a decision in his or her own right.

46. Turning to the other preliminary issues, the declaratory reliefs are either an attempt to

circumvent or otherwise avoid the necessity to invoke the normal and appropriate statutory

procedures for determining whether unauthorised development has occurred (e.g., s. 160 of the

2000 Act – so judicial review is not the most appropriate remedy in any event) or a collateral attack

on the validity of the planning permission. Where other relief is relied on in substance to impugn an

individual decision the challenge of which is subject to statutory restrictions, the challenge to the

measure of general application is also subject to such restrictions: Nawaz v. Minister for Justice,

Equality and Law Reform [2012] IESC 58, [2013] 1 I.R. 142 (per Clarke J.; Fennelly, O’Donnell,

McKechnie, MacMenamin JJ. concurring).

47. The complaints about unauthorised development which was regularised by the impugned

decision insofar as it allowed retention are an absolutely classic example of the application of the

Nawaz doctrine. A court could not grant the declarations sought in that regard without indirectly

casting doubt on the validity of the retention permission.

48. Furthermore, and perhaps even more fundamentally, the commission was not purporting to

determine (nor could it) whether existing development was unauthorised. That is not its role either

generally or in an application of this type. Hence judicial review of the commission’s decision is not

an appropriate vehicle in any event to challenge an issue on which it did not opine.

49. Complaints about the developer’s conduct do not properly arise from the facts. Complaints

regarding the development plan (albeit made in somewhat muted terms) are a collateral challenge

that cannot be raised without having joined the council.

50. If the declarations are to be read as purely historical – i.e., that the developments were

unauthorised prior to being regularised – that is academic and pointless, and potentially such a

waste of scarce court resources as to warrant consideration of s. 50B(3) of the 2000 Act.

51. As regards pleadings, the applicant’s pleadings are generally inadequate and largely consist

of generic recitations of general principles without an attempt to provide a route-map between any

complaint and the specific relief sought via the detailed facts. This echoes points previously made

in Duffy v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 558 (Unreported, High Court, Holland J., 27 September

2024) and Duffy v. Minister for Housing [2026] IEHC 46 (Unreported, High Court, Holland J., 30

January 2026). I do appreciate how difficult it must be for a litigant in person to navigate the

minefields of planning law, but unfortunately the same rules of engagement about pleadings apply

to all litigants.

52. As the commission correctly points out in submissions, “‘[r]ecital of high-level principles

does not create certiorari by osmosis – an applicant must specify a route-map connecting the

particular factual problem alleged with the particular relief sought via a chain of reasoning’ –

Cummins v An Coimisiún Pleanála [2025] IEHC 521 (§44(iv)); and Ballyboden Tidy Towns v An Bord

Pleanála [2021] IEHC 648 (§20)”.

53. So I would dismiss the proceedings at the outset on the foregoing bases individually or

collectively. If I am wrong about that I will go on to consider the merits.

54. As follows from the above in any event, the applicant’s statement of grounds is unstructured

in that the core grounds do not align with the particulars set out. The parties’ position are thus set

out by reference to the issues raised in line with the agreed statement of case.

Domestic law issues

Issue 1 – condition 3 of the parent permission & related complaints

55. The pleaded complaints are at §7-§8, §11, §21-§23, §27 and §29-§35.

56. The parties’ positions as recorded in the statement of case are summarised as follows:

“Applicant’s Position

35. Condition No. 3 of the parent permission in unambiguous. It states that no

construction shall begin and no house or building shall be occupied until confirmation that

the wwtp is commissioned.

36. The planning decision ABP-306850-20, which permitted the subject development,

the details of which did not seek a connection to the public sewer and therefore the AA

screening carried out by the Inspector in that application did not consider impacts of a

wastewater connection to the sewer.

37. The Inspector’s commentary in 7.6.2 is misdirected. The application specifically

seeks (retention) to omit condition No. 3 of the parent permission. This AA screening or any

previous AA screening does not consider likely impacts on European Sites from the foul water

connection proposed to be retained. The sole reason for Condition No. 3 of the parent

permission was to protect connected European Sites and surface waters. That connectivity

was recognised by the Inspector in respect of surface water discharging from the

development.

38. In paragraph 7.6.3 the Inspector refers to the details of this application but does not

refer to the wastewater connection. Wastewater arising is not mentioned anywhere in the

AA screening.

39. The Inspector (and the Commission) misdirected themselves by screening out Stage

2 AA in circumstances where there is identified connectivity to European Sites via the

overloaded wwtp which the Commission (Board) recognised and precluded since 2007.

40. The de minimis volume of wastewater defence now offered is not relevant when no

assessment in that regard was made.

41. For completeness in paragraph 7.3.5 the Inspector refers to the difference in

volumes of wastewater vis-a-vis that intended, and precluded, in the parent permission. This

argument is unsustainable in circumstances where a proper AA must take account of

cumulative or in-combination impacts. There were three subsequent planning applications,

on the remainder of the same lands the subject of the parent permission. This is analogous

to project splitting.

Commission’s Position

42. These are, in substance, the AA complaints pleaded at §1-§2, §5, §9, §19, §24, §28

which in fact Mr Duffy says below.

43. Whereas the Applicant has complaints what is said to be unauthorised development,

it is to be recalled that is the essence of a retention application – it arises because

development did not have permission.

44. In any event, the Inspector (inter alia, §7.6 and Appendix 2), with whom the

Commission agreed, determined that there was no need for AA – same was screened out.

The conclusions reached in this respect aligned with the Developer’s AA Screening Report

and the Council’s AA Screening conclusions. In screening out AA, the Inspector’s reasons

included, inter alia: the small scale and urban nature of the development; the location and

long distance from the nearest European Site and lack of connections; and the evidence

presented, including from the Council.

45. The Applicant does not engage with any of this rationale in his pleaded challenge

nor indeed the evidence all of which positively dealt with the lack of need for an AA. In

particular, the Developer’s AA Screening Report described the possible pathways to

European sites, and explained why there was a lack of impacts predicted. The only factual

basis for making this complaint that the Applicant relies on is that Condition 3 of the Parent

Permission was not applied to the development before the Commission. But this does not

evidence any flaw in the AA Screening. The point is that the works for which retention are

sought or permission sought (i.e. the fit out) were already considered in prior applications

and, as the AA Screening Report made clear, all relevant mitigation had already been

constructed and was in place. Hence the matters for which permission was sought here,

simply do not bring about a need for AA. This is all fully reasoned in the AA Screening

Report. The Applicant’s point, however, seems to be that there had to be AA by reason of

the connection to the wastewater systems as agreed to by Irish Water / Uisce Eireann.

46. Two fatal difficulties present for the Applicant in respect of his AA complaints:

(i) The pleadings are entirely inadequate for the purposes of advancing an AA

complaint. The Applicant does not identify any specific European Site in respect of which

these AA complaints are said to relate. Moreover, the pleadings say nothing about any

relevant Conservation Objectives or Qualifying Interests. A similar approach adopted by this

Applicant was dismissed in – Duffy v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 558. This is particularly

significant given the distances involved in this case.

(ii) Noting the applicable standard of proof – that of a reasonable expert (per Reid) –

the Applicant has failed to discharge the burden of demonstrating any error in the

Commission’s AA Screening decision.

(iii) This is all particularly important where the unchallenged evidence is that the loading

into the wastewater system from the matters the subject matter of this permission are

actually less than what was in place previously. In essence, the Applicant’s case amounts

to saying that a party who obtains agreement to connect to an existing wastewater

connection with a lower PE than before (therefore improving matters, at least from this

perspective) has to carry out a full AA simply because one is connecting to a wastewater

system which the Applicant says (and has not proven in this case) is overloaded, but without

engaging at all with how that connects to concerns about habitats.

47. Insofar as the Applicant makes a related complaint regarding s.34(12) of the PDA,

same is misconceived. On the facts, the development was not required to be subject to AA

and the Applicant has not established anything to the contrary.”

57. The initial reason why this point fails is that the pleading is wholly inadequate. Pleading

requirements are particularly acute in complex matters of EU law (see Concerned Residents of

Treascon and Clondoolusk v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IESC 28, [2024] 7 JIC 0402 (Unreported,

Supreme Court, Murray J., 4 July 2024)), and an applicant cannot simply cite AA or other directives

at a high level but fail to identify the allegedly affected European site or engage with its conservation

objectives or qualifying interests.

58. If I am wrong about that, the applicant has in any event failed to discharge the burden of

proof to show that the AA screening was flawed. The terms of what the applicant calls the parent

permission are not preclusive of the legality of the commission’s decision here.

59. The applicant incorrectly uses the language of a “collateral attack” on a previous decision,

but that misunderstands the concept. The fact of a previous decision being in place does not preclude

an administrative decision-taker from making a further decision, which may in principle amend a

previous decision, which happened here.

60. The commission in any event had reasons for not applying condition 3 to this development.

As pointed out by the commission in submissions, “Condition 3 of the Parent Permission was not

applied to the development before the Commission because the evidence before the Commission

outlined that the public water/wastewater infrastructure had been determined by UE to have capacity

to facilitate the connection and a connection was so made”. As the commission points out, “UE is

the body responsible for such infrastructure and a body which is presumed will act/acted lawfully

(Duffy v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 715 (inter alia, §51)”.

61. The overall unreality to this point is that the impact of this development was deemed to be

less than that originally envisaged in the parent permission.

Issue 2 – validity of the planning application

62. The pleaded complaints are at §6 and §25.

63. The parties’ positions as recorded in the statement of case are summarised as follows:

“Applicant’s Position

48. I say that there are two indisputable issues of invalidity of this application. Firstly

the evidence of three planning applications on these lands within a 6 month window without

flagging subsequent applications with site notices of a different colour as prescribed in

legislation.

49. Secondly, these site notices, evident in Planner’s Reports, are erected other than in

a public place. They were erected within the redline boundary on private lands which did not

require any letter of consent from the PA which would have been the case if this was a public

road.

50. Once I became aware of this issue I monitored the planning applications and have

submitted in three subsequent applications. Two of these have been refused permission

partly on wastewater grounds and the third is currently under appeal to the Respondent with

a decision date indicated for July 2026.

Commission’s Position

51. The Applicant has, to his credit, clarified his points to two and therefore the

Commission does not deal with anything save these two.

52. On the colour of the site notice, the Applicant says that the Site Notice did not comply

with Art.19(4) of the PDRs because it should have been on a yellow background – contending

that the application site here was the same as the site in planning application 22/1161 and

23/60139. There is no factual substance to this complaint – the two applications referred

to by the Applicant concern a different red-line site.

53. On the second point, he says that the Site Notice was not located ‘in a public place’,

contrary to Art.19. However, this is not what the PDRs require. Rather, the Site Notice is

to be fixed in a conspicuous position on or near the main entrance to the land to be easily

visible and legible by persons using the public road. The evidence before the Commission –

including the Site Layout Plan, Land Registry Compliant Map, the Council’s Planner’s Report

(and photograph therein) and the Developer’s appeal response – highlights that this was

done.”

64. The basic reason why this point fails is that it misunderstands the Planning and Development

Regulations 2001. Subsequent notices need only be in yellow if the application refers to the same

site. The applicant has failed to discharge the onus of proof to demonstrate that. As regards the

second point, the 2001 regulations do not require a site notice to be in a public place. The point is

simply based on a false premise.

EU law issues

Issue 3 – EIA complaints

65. The pleaded complaints are at §1-§2, §5 and §15-§18.

66. The parties’ positions as recorded in the statement of case are summarised as follows:

“Applicant’s Position

54. I am not pursuing EIA complaints.

Commission’s Position

55. The Commission therefore makes no points here.”

67. These points therefore no longer arise.

Issue 4 – AA complaints

68. The pleaded complaints are at §1-§2, §5, §9, §19, §24 and §28.

69. The parties’ positions as recorded in the statement of case are summarised as follows:

“Applicant’s Position

56. I am pursuing AA complaints on the lines stated above.

Commission’s Position

[blank – presumably as the position is outlined above]”

70. The basic reason why this point fails is that the applicant has failed to discharge the onus of

proof to demonstrate an inadequacy in the AA screening, as already stated above.

Issue 5 – water / wastewater

71. The pleaded complaints are at §1-§2, §3, §5 and §11-§14.

72. The parties’ positions as recorded in the statement of case are summarised as follows:

“Applicant’s Position

57. As stated I am not pursuing the European Grounds. However I am maintaining that

the Respondent had a duty to comply with Regulation 43 of the Waste Water Discharge

(Authorisation) Regulations 2007 as amended in both AA screening and on the basis of

proper planning and sustainable development.

Commission’s Position

58. These complaints should be dismissed on the basis that similar complaints have

failed and have not been established evidentially, including by reference to the evidence

before the Commission – see An Taisce v An Bord Pleanála (No.1) [2021] IEHC 254,

Concerned Residents of Treascon and Clondoolusk v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IEHC 700; and

Ryanair DAC v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 74. In Salmon Watch Ireland CLG v ALAB

[2024] IEHC 421 (§1096), the Court rejected such complaints as ‘entirely abstract and

theoretical’. The Court noted that ‘while [the Applicant identified] matters not considered

by ALAB, they do not state any basis for the implied premise that those matters required

consideration. They do not lay any basis in particulars or facts for any case for certiorari’.

59. As to the Applicant’s complaint based on Reg.43 the Waste Water Discharge

(Authorisation) Regulations 2007, same was not raised before the Commission and cannot

be maintained now. In any event, the said complaint is misconceived as it is premised on

the unamended version of Reg.43 – Reg.43, as amended, does not apply in this case.

60. In any event, the unchallenged evidence is that the discharge involved here involves

a lower PE than the applied to the connections which are at issue.”

73. The basic reason why this point fails is that the applicant has failed to adequately plead a

breach of law and failed to discharge the onus of proof to show that (a) reg. 43 of the 2007

regulations applies, (b) reg. 43, if it applies, was breached in some identified manner.

74. Compounding this, the application seems to be premised on the original unamended version

of reg. 43 whereas this has in fact been amended twice by S.I. No. 652 of 2016 and S.I. No. 214 of

2020. The provision as amended relates to the interplay between planning and Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) discharge licensing. The applicant has failed to demonstrate evidentially

that there is such an interplay here and indeed there is no evidence of any licensing matter actually

before the EPA that would trigger the provision.

Summary

75. In outline summary, without taking from the more specific terms of this judgment:

(i) it is settled law that an applicant must have sufficient interest or otherwise comply

with s. 50(3) of the 2000 Act;

(ii) applying such law to the facts here, the applicant lacks such interest and does not

otherwise so comply;

(iii) it is settled law that an applicant’s point must be properly pleaded with the

requisite specificity;

(iv) applying such law to the facts here, the applicant has failed to comply with that

requirement;

(v) it is settled law that an applicant must have discharged the onus of proof to

establish all facts necessary for relief; and

(vi) applying such law to the facts here, the applicant has failed to discharge that onus.

Order

76. For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that:

(i) the proceedings be dismissed;

(ii) unless any party applies otherwise by the time and in the manner set out below, the

foregoing order be perfected forthwith thereafter on the basis of no order as to costs

(including no order as to any reserved or adjourned costs or costs not otherwise

dealt with);

(iii) the foregoing proposed order be subject to contrary written legal submission or any

consequential application supported by a written legal submission, such submission

to be delivered within 7 days, with replies by other parties within a further 7 days;

(iv) for the avoidance of doubt, any unsuccessful application to vary any provisional

order as to costs proposed in this judgment may be addressed pursuant to O. 103

r. 40(4) RSC; and

(v) the matter be listed at 09:30 on Monday 18 May 2026 to confirm the foregoing.