The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by CWTC Multi Family ICAV and upheld the High Court order quashing An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a 1,592-apartment development at the former Dublin Diocesan Seminary at Holy Cross College, Clonliffe, Dublin 3.
In a judgment delivered on 11 April 2024, Mr Justice Woulfe said the Board had failed to assess relevant development plan policies on the effect of the proposed buildings on protected structures and on a basement beneath the Formal Garden. The Court also upheld the High Court’s finding that the Board’s reasons for granting permission were inadequate.
The Board granted permission in November 2021 for 12 residential blocks, ranging from two to 18 storeys, along with associated works. The proposal included a basement beneath part of the garden and works affecting parts of protected structures. The High Court quashed the permission in January 2023. The developer appealed.
The Supreme Court held that the exceptional-circumstances test in section 57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 applies to demolition of an entire protected structure, not demolition of any part of one. The Court said the Board must still have regard to a structure’s protected status when considering permission for works involving partial demolition. It found that the High Court had interpreted this provision too broadly, but that conclusion did not change the result of the appeal.
On the development plan, the Court said the inspector had not assessed whether the height, scale and other features of the proposed Block D1 related to and complemented the special character of nearby protected structures, as required by policy CHC2. Nor had the inspector engaged with the policy discouraging significant basement development near protected structures or assessed the potential impact on mature trees. The Supreme Court said the Board had made no determination on whether the proposal materially contravened either policy, despite being required to consider those provisions and the relevant statutory procedure.
The Court also found the Board’s reasons inadequate. It said the inspector and Board had not sufficiently addressed conservation concerns about Block D1’s height, scale and proximity to protected structures, the development’s density and its potential implications for their upkeep. They had also failed to explain how a method statement condition would deal with concerns about the loss of mature trees and the effect on the historic landscape.
The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order quashing the Board’s permission, in part for reasons different from those given by the High Court. It did not decide the planning application afresh or grant or refuse permission for a revised proposal.