The High Court has refused Graymount House Action Group and two named applicants leave to appeal a judgment that upheld planning permission for a 32-unit apartment development on Dungriffin Road, Howth.
Mr Justice Barr ruled on 13 September 2024 that the applicants had not shown that any of four proposed legal questions raised a point of exceptional public importance, as required for a planning appeal to the Court of Appeal. The court also found no basis to certify an appeal as desirable in the public interest.
The application followed the High Court’s substantive judgment of 31 May 2024, which rejected the applicants’ judicial review challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s decision to grant planning permission. The applicants had raised about nine grounds against the Board’s decision, which the court rejected by applying settled legal principles.
Two proposed questions concerned how planning authorities should interpret development plans and guidelines, and what reasons they must give for their decisions. The applicants argued that the court had treated some plan provisions as aspirational without first identifying their legal limits, and that the law on reasons was uncertain. The judge found the relevant law settled. He said aspirational provisions called for planning judgment, reviewable if irrational in the legal sense, and that the Board had given the main reasons on the main issues.
A third question concerned whether revised figures in a development plan variation took effect from the date the underlying data was collected or when the variation was adopted. The court held that the variation took effect on its formal adoption date, 19 June 2020, and found no basis for an appeal on that point.
The fourth question concerned whether commitments in planning application documents, including public access to a playground, could be enforced through the standard condition requiring construction in line with submitted plans and particulars. The judge said the documents contained a clear commitment to provide public open space and public access, and that the standard condition made it enforceable. He refused to certify this question too.
The ruling addresses only whether the applicants could appeal the May judgment. The court refused leave to appeal; it did not make the final order on the proceedings or decide costs in this judgment. The parties were given two weeks to submit written positions on those matters, and the case was listed for mention on 22 October 2024.