The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s permission for an additional height increase at a Dublin apartment development after finding that its daylight analysis used the wrong standard.
Mr Justice Humphreys ruled that the board’s decision of 15 February 2021 could not stand because the inspector assessed compliance against a 1.5% Average Daylight Factor (ADF) target, rather than the 2% standard in the relevant guidelines. As a result, the board did not clearly identify the extent to which the proposal fell short of the applicable standard before considering whether a departure could be justified.
The case concerned a proposed top-up to apartment blocks at St Clare’s Park, Harold’s Cross Road. The applicant, Paul Walsh, challenged the board’s decision to grant permission under the strategic housing development process. The blocks had been completed without the proposed height increase, and the judgment said it was unclear whether the developer intended to carry it out.
The court rejected several other arguments. It found no basis to quash the decision on fair-procedure grounds: although the applicant received lengthy new material shortly before and during the oral hearing and had only two days to respond, he made his point about use of the wrong daylight factor in that response. The court also rejected the claim that the board’s failure to refer expressly to a particular statutory provision was an error of law.
Other grounds were not pursued, including claims about public participation rights and the statutory time limit. The State had been released from the case by consent, which proceeded between Mr Walsh and the board. The developer did not take part in the proceedings.
The judgment also recounted an earlier, separate judicial review that was settled on terms requiring tree planting to protect the applicant’s privacy. The applicant said the works were not carried out after the developer’s subsidiary was dissolved. The judge discussed possible legal avenues in that dispute but did not make a finding on the complaint or grant relief concerning it in this case.
The court ordered certiorari quashing the board’s 15 February 2021 decision, reference ABP-308533-20, and listed the matter for 9 May 2022 for any consequential orders. The judgment did not itself determine those consequential orders.