The High Court dismissed Cicol Limited’s challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for 62 apartments and a mixed-use leisure scheme at Dudley’s Field, beside Overend Way in Dundrum. The court held that the Board was correct in law to find the development materially contravened the area’s open-space zoning objective.
In a judgment delivered on 8 May 2008, Ms Justice Irvine said the Board had complied with its statutory duties, considered the relevant material and was not required to revisit whether it might grant permission after concluding that the proposal contravened the development plan. The court refused the relief sought, leaving the Board’s 2 October 2007 refusal in force.
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council had granted permission in March 2007, subject to 20 conditions. Seven third parties appealed, including residents’ associations and a local school. An Bord Pleanála then refused permission, agreeing generally with its inspector’s recommendation. The Board said the primarily residential and mixed commercial proposal would materially contravene Objective F, which is to preserve and provide open space and recreational amenities.
Cicol’s scheme included five five-storey apartment blocks, a two-storey leisure building with a recreation centre, health spa and crèche, and basement parking. The site covered 13,600 square metres. The judgment records that three-quarters of the site was to remain open space, while the apartments and some commercial uses fell within categories listed as “open for consideration” under the plan.
The company argued, among other grounds, that the Board had not given adequate reasons, had failed to properly consider the council’s interpretation of its plan and a specific objective concerning the Airfield Estate, and should have assessed the site alongside the wider adjoining open space. It also argued that the Board should have considered granting permission despite finding a material contravention.
Justice Irvine rejected those arguments. She found the inspector’s report set out the competing views and relevant plan provisions, and the Board’s decision sufficiently stated its main reason for refusal. The court held that the listed uses were guidance and did not displace the plan’s broader aim to preserve open space; the scheme’s overall nature and scale could therefore be found incompatible with Objective F.
The judge also said the Board was not required to give special weight to the council’s interpretation of the plan. While the judgment records that the Board had considered the proposal in the context of adjacent zoned lands, the court added that relying on a neighbour’s open space would not cure a development that materially conflicted with the plan on its own site.
Finally, the Board was not obliged to consider granting permission, in whole or in part, after finding material contravention. Cicol had argued to the Board that its proposal complied with the plan and had not asked it to consider permission on an alternative basis. The court concluded the Board’s decision was correct as a matter of law and Cicol was not entitled to relief.