The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s grant of planning permission for five one-bedroom apartments at Rutland Place North, Dublin 1, after finding that the Board’s inspector failed to consider the enforcement history of a neighbouring kitchen extension before assessing an objection about its doorway.
In a judgment delivered on 3 February 2023, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland ordered that the Board’s decision of 10 February 2021 be quashed and the matter remitted to the Board. The court’s decision rested on that failure to consider a relevant matter; it did not decide the planning status of the extension or the merits of the planning application.
Gary Solan, who lives at 22 Rutland Place North beside the development site, objected that the proposed building would block a kitchen door opening onto the site, affecting access and light. He also raised concerns about drainage and smoke from his chimney. The Board’s inspector recommended permission, reasoning that there was no record of permission for the doorway’s extension, retention permission had previously been refused, and the implications of building on the boundary were a civil matter.
The court accepted that the Board was entitled to consider the extension’s planning status. But once the inspector relied on that status in discounting the objection about the door, he had to consider all material information about it. The enforcement file included a 2017 officer’s report recording that the ground-floor extension had been in place for more than seven years and recommending that no further enforcement action be taken. The file was closed.
The judge noted that refusing retention permission does not necessarily mean a development is unauthorised, because it may be exempt from the requirement for permission. The inspector had not considered the enforcement file or the question of exemption before reaching a negative view of the doorway’s planning status. The court said the inspector could have sought submissions from Mr Solan or obtained the file.
The judge declined to consider a separate argument, raised at the hearing, that Mr Solan’s right to be heard had been breached, because it was not pleaded. She also did not address the remaining grounds concerning drainage and the chimney. Those issues therefore were not resolved by this judgment.
The judgment proposed a remote hearing on costs and final orders for 9 February. It did not determine costs in the decision reproduced here.