The High Court has upheld An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for a house in a rural part of Co Meath.
Although Mr Justice Alexander Owens ruled that two of the board’s grounds for rejecting the application were invalid, the judge said its third reason was valid and sufficient to support its decision.
Louise Murtagh had been refused permission by Meath County Council and, on appeal, An Bord Pleanála for development of a house at Faughan Hill near where she lives with her mother.
The nearest rural settlement cluster to Ms Murtagh’s site is Bohermeen village about 2km away, said the judge.
What did Irish Times readers search for most in 2024?
Tasty vegetarian options for Christmas dinner that can be prepared ahead of time
Mark O'Connell: The mystery is not why we Irish have responded to Israel’s barbarism. It’s why others have not
‘One Christmas Day my brother set me on fire’: seven writers spill their most bizarre Yuletide yarns
Ms Murtagh, a cleaner in a local school, said her application was a for a “rural generated housing need”.
The judge said applications for houses on nearby land have been turned down over the years, while a couple, Michael and Rose Murray, unsuccessfully appealed to the Supreme Court in their bid to retain their property built without planning permission at Faughan Hill more than 15 years ago.
Last September Mr and Mrs Murray secured a temporary High Court order preventing the demolition of their house due to their claim that new evidence had come to light. A further element of that case, which is opposed by Meath County Council, is due to be heard next week.
Ruling in Ms Murtagh’s proceedings, Mr Justice Owens said the board incorrectly concluded that the proposed build is located in an “area under urban influence”, as per the National Policy Framework. The framework, published by the Government in 2018, was wrongly given primacy over the council’s local development plan which designated the site as being in a “strong rural area”, he said.
An Bord Pleanála introduced a requirement that Ms Murtagh must show that her housing needs could not be met in a nearby town or settlement, the judge said.
He also found the board relied on conditions attached to 2005 planning permissions, requiring the land to be used for agriculture, but these were “not relevant” to this application.
However, the board did not act improperly in deciding that the proposed development would give rise to an excessive density of development, he said.
The judge said any decision might be made for a number of reasons, some of which are valid and some of which are not. “It does not follow that an invalid reason will automatically result in an invalid decision,” he said.
He refused to set aside the board’s order.
