A secondary school in Greystones, Co Wicklow, has lost its challenge over planning permission obtained by McDonald's for a drive through fast-food restaurant less than 100 metres from the school's front entrance and sports grounds.
Temple Carraig school’s board of management had claimed McDonald’s Restaurants Ireland Ltd chose the location at Blacklion, Greystones, because it is close to the school, and two other schools, Gaelscoil Na Clocha Liatha and Greystones Educate Together, which between them cater for 1,800 students.
It challenged a September 30th 2015 decision by An Bord Pleanála approving a development comprising a McDonald's restaurant, a health and fitness studio and commercial unit at the Blacklion Neighbourhood Centre.
Lost interest
While the school may take some comfort from the fact McDonald’s appears, “for now, at least”, to have lost interest in proceeding with the restaurant, and it presently seems more likely a supermarket will be developed on the site, the school’s concern is the permission McDonald’s obtained remains in being, Mr Justice Max Barrett said.
The school decided to proceed with its case due to concerns the “pendulum of commerce may yet swing again” and a fast-food restaurant unwanted by the board may yet be built close to the school, he said.
The school did not consider having a fast-food restaurant almost on its doorstep “is conducive to healthy eating by impressionable children going to and from the school”.
While many would instinctively answer “no” if asked whether it is a good idea to place an “alluring” fast-food restaurant close by a school entrance, that was not the issue in the case, the judge stressed.
Bord Pleanála decision
The issue was whether An Bord Pleanála erred in how it made its decision and the court’s conclusion was it had not erred in any of the ways alleged and did all that was required of it under the Planning and Development Act 2000.
He found no error in the Board’s decision to grant permission, by a four to one majority, generally in accordance with recommendations of its inspector.
He dismissed claims the Board failed to meet obligations under the Act to “have regard to” Government policies and objectives concerning the health of children.
The statutory obligation to “have regard to” government policies and objectives “means just that” and does not, for example, entail an obligation to follow such policies and objectives, he said.
The Board was required to fully inform itself about, and reasonably consider, such policies and objectives, he said.
The Board clearly understood there was an issue whether having a fast-food restaurant close to a school was counter-productive in terms of encouraging healthy eating by pupils, he found.
Healthy eating
There are also “only so many ways” one can assert the need for children to “eat healthy in order to be healthy”, he added.
The inspector had had regard in his report to the National Policy Framework for Children and Young People 2014-2020, the judge noted. The fact that the inspector did not expressly refer to another document touching on childhood obesity, the Healthy Ireland Strategy of March 2013, could not amount to a breach by the Board, which largely endorsed the inspector’s report, of the relevant provisions of the Act.
The inspector also undertook a stage one screening of the planning application and decided a stage two appropriate assessment was not required, the judge noted. The Board was not, despite what the school contended, required to “itself” conduct the stage one screening or to itself decide a stage two appropriate assessment was not necessary.
