Reddan v an Bord Pleanála

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice Nolan
• Judgment Date: 26 March 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 172
• Docket Number: 2024 1348 JR

In the Matter of An Application Pursuant to Sections 50, 50A and 50B of Planning and Development Act 2000, As Amended

Between

David Reddan

Applicant

and

An Bord Pleanála

Respondent

and

The Trustees of Nenagh Golf Club

Notice Party

[2025] IEHC 172

2024 1348 JR

THE HIGH COURT

Planning permission – Judicial review – Leave to apply – Applicant seeking liberty to bring judicial review proceedings against the decision of the respondent to grant planning permission to the notice party – Whether the applicant had established substantial issues which would warrant a judicial review of the respondent’s decision

Facts: The applicant, Mr Reddan, applied to the High Court for liberty to bring judicial review proceedings against the decision of the respondent, An Bord Pleanála (the Board), to grant planning permission to the notice party, the trustees of Nenagh Golf Club, Co Tipperary, in relation to the construction of a roof over six driving bays on the practice ground at the golf club. The applicant, who relatively recently purchased lands adjacent to the practice ground of the golf club, said that there had been multiple breaches of the Planning and Development Act 2000, set out in his amended statement of grounds. He also challenged the decision under Article 40 of the Constitution and the ECHR, namely the right to liberty and property and the full economic value of his property, the right to safety and peaceful enjoyment of his property without interference or risk and the right to physically enjoy his property. He sought compensation for nuisance in regard to the interference with his property. However, he had not issued any such proceedings. The applicant submitted nine grounds relating to whether what was proposed was an authorised development, that balls from the practice area had landed on his land with what he said was increasing frequency and allegations of perjury. The Board said that the applicant was required to demonstrate that there were "substantial grounds" for judicial review: s. 50A(3)(a) of the 2000 Act. It relied on the views of Carroll J in McNamara v An Bord Pleanala (No. 1) [1995] 2 ILRM 125 at 130 and Order 84 Rule 20(3) of the Rules of the Superior Courts, that the onus is on the applicant to prove at the leave stage that there are substantial grounds to challenge or quash the impugned decision and that remains an onus in an inter partes hearing for an application for leave on notice, citing Heavey v An Bord Pleanala [2024] IEHC 480. The Board said that the reliefs the applicant was looking for were vague and had not been particularised nor had any significant public interest being identified. The Board said that there was evidence before it dealing with every single complaint of the applicant and therefore, there was no basis whatsoever for granting the relief sought.

Held by Nolan J that it could not be said that any of the nine grounds were reasonable, arguable or weighty. Nolan J found that it could be said that they were both trivial and tenuous, quoting Carroll J in McNamara. Nolan J held that the applicant had failed to establish any substantial issue or issues of any nature which would warrant a judicial review of the decision of the Board. Nolan J was struck by the applicant’s motivation which he openly said was to try to force the golf club to change the orientation of its practice area; this was a practice area he had known for years, and one which he was fully aware of when he purchased his property in 2019.

Nolan J held that, in all the circumstances, he would refuse the applicant’s application for leave to issue judicial review proceedings.

Application refused.

JUDGEMENT of Mr Justice Nolan delivered on the 13 ^th day of March 2025

Introduction

1 . This is an application for liberty to bring judicial review proceedings against the decision of the Respondent (“the Board”) to grant planning permission to the Notice Party (“the Golf Club”) in relation to the construction of a roof over six driving bays on the practice ground at Nenagh Golf Club, Co Tipperary.

2 . The Applicant, who relatively recently purchased lands adjacent to practice ground of the Golf Club, says that there have been multiple breaches of the Planning and Development Act of 2000 (“the 2000 Act”) as amended, set out in his amended Statement of Grounds. He also challenges the decision under Article 40 of the Constitution and the ECHR, namely the right to liberty and property and the full economic value of his property, the right to safety and peaceful enjoyment of his property without interference or risk and the right to physically enjoy his property. He seeks compensation for nuisance in regard to the interference with his property. However, he has not issued any such proceedings.

Background

3 . The Applicant is a long-time member of the Golf Club and was at one stage a professional golfer. The Golf Club submitted a planning application to Tipperary County Council for a roof over six driving bays at the practice area, in order to provide protection for club members from the elements.

4 . The structure was designed by a local Architect. The application related only to the construction of the roofed area and did not apply to the landing area of the practice ground, which have been used continuously by members for approximately 30 years. Planning permission was granted by the local authority on the 31 ^st of July 2023, together with increased car parking for thirty vehicles.

5 . The Applicant subsequently appealed to the Board in 2023. Following on-site inspection, and the engagement of two Inspectors, it approved the grant of permission on the 5 ^th of September 2024.

6 . In his amended Statement of Grounds, he says that the Board received submissions from the Golf Club, which included matters which were not relevant and therefore, this represented a deliberate misrepresentation. He says that false statements were made by a number of parties.

7 . He sought leave to bring a judicial review in September of 2024 and believes that his Statement of Grounds contain matters of public importance and have ramifications for every planning application ever submitted.

8 . On the 4 ^th of November 2024, the court (Humphreys J.) directed that the Golf Club be made a notice party to the proceedings and for the application for leave be made on notice to both the Board and the Golf club.

9 . The court made further directions for an amended Statement of Grounds and an amended affidavit be filed by the Applicant with liberty to apply to both the Board and the Golf Club to file additional affidavits together with submissions. The Applicant did not file submissions but relied upon his affidavits.

The Grounds Seeking Judicial Review

10 . The Applicant submits nine grounds which I will set out in detail below. Suffice to say that they relate to whether what is proposed is an authorised development, that balls from the practice area have landed on his land with what he says is increasing frequency and allegations of perjury.

The Board's General Submissions

11 . The Board says the Applicant is required to demonstrate that there are “ substantial grounds” for judicial review. Section 50A(3)(a) of the 2000 Act, as amended, states that the court shall not grant leave unless it is satisfied that “there are substantial grounds for contending that the decision or act concerned is invalid or ought to be quashed”.

12 . It relies on the views of Carroll J. in McNamara v An Bord Pleanala (No.l) [1995] 2 ILRM 125 at 130 and Order 84 Rule 20(3), that the onus is on the Applicant to prove at the leave stage that there are substantial grounds to challenge or quash the impugned decision and that remains an onus in an inter partes hearing for an application for leave on notice (see Heavey v An Bord Pleanala [2024] IEHC 480). This is such a hearing.

13 . Judicial review proceedings are not an appeal of the merits of the decision but rather are to review its legality and to rectify any identified illegality. The court has no power to intervene on the merits of any decision. This must be done on affidavit. The Board says this has not happened here. It points to the helpful decision of Holland J. in Heavey as to the requirement of pleadings.

14 . Notwithstanding that the Applicant is a litigant in person, that does not alter the obligation placed upon him to abide by the requirements of particularity.

15 . However, the reliefs the Applicant are looking for are vague and have not been particularised nor has any significant public interest being identified. But most importantly, there was evidence before the Board dealing with every single complaint of the Applicant and therefore, there was no basis whatsoever for granting the relief sought.

The Notice Party's General Submissions

16 . The Golf Club says the application is not based upon substantial grounds, is frivolous and vexatious and arises out of an animus which has developed since the Applicant bought a parcel of lands adjacent to the Golf Club's boundary in 2019. In those circumstances, it says that the Statements of Grounds do not meet the necessary legal threshold to qualify as substantial grounds. Further, they are full of unnecessary personal attacks on members of the club and their professional advisors.

17 . His grounds are far-fetched, devoid of precision and generally take the form of bald statements not supported by background facts or information.

18 . An example of this is his assertion that the development is for a commercial purpose. It simply involves the upgrade of the existing facilities for the exclusive benefit of the club members. Further, his allegation that stray golf balls amount to reckless endangerment contrary to law is an example of sensational and irrational claims.

19 . They too rely upon the principles set out in McNamara, which was recently approved by McDonald J. in Morris...