The High Court quashed the Z15 zoning provisions in Dublin City Council’s 2011–2017 Development Plan after finding that elected members gave inadequate reasons for excluding residential use from the category of uses open for consideration.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Clarke on 27 April 2012, followed a judicial review brought by nine Sisters of Charity against the Council. The sisters argued that the zoning unlawfully restricted their lands and affected their property rights. The court accepted that they had standing to challenge the plan, even though they had not first applied for planning permission.
Z15 covered lands intended for institutional, educational, recreational, community, green infrastructure and health uses. The plan allowed limited development in specified circumstances, and listed uses such as hotels and guesthouses as open for consideration, but excluded residential use from that category. The judge found that the plan gave broad reasons for retaining community and institutional resources, but no reason for permitting some limited non-institutional uses while excluding housing at a comparable scale.
The Council’s Manager had supported reinstating residential use as open for consideration, but elected members adopted amendments that excluded it. The judgment said those members were entitled to depart from the Manager’s position, but where an amendment required reasons, they had to state them in the resolution or refer to accessible material that supplied them. The court could not assess whether the housing restriction was lawful without knowing why it had been adopted.
The court also quashed two provisions it found independently impermissible: a reference to social and affordable housing despite residential use not being open for consideration, and wording that appeared to prejudge future applications to allow development in material contravention of the plan.
The judge did not decide the sisters’ broader claims that the zoning disproportionately interfered with constitutional or European Convention property rights, or discriminated against religious landowners. He said those questions could not be assessed without adequate reasons for the zoning. He rejected the separate claim that the zoning diverted religious property contrary to Article 44.2.6 of the Constitution, finding that the restrictions fell short of a diversion.
The court referred the Z15 matter back to elected members to formulate replacement provisions for the affected lands. They could adopt a different zoning or readopt Z15 with adequate reasons. The judgment did not settle the final wording of the order: the parties were invited to make submissions on its precise terms, including costs.