The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s permission for 208 apartments at Carlisle, Kimmage Road West, Terenure, after finding the board could not rely on public transport capacity to justify building above the local development plan’s height limit.
In a judgment delivered on 13 May 2024, Ms Justice Emily Farrell found that the developer had not shown that the site was served by high-capacity public transport, as required to rely on Specific Planning Policy Requirement 3 (SPPR3) of the 2018 Building Height Guidelines. The board’s decision to grant permission despite the development plan’s 16-metre limit was therefore invalid, she ruled.
The proposed development has five blocks, all exceeding 16 metres and three exceeding 20 metres. It comprises 104 one-bedroom and 104 two-bedroom apartments. The developer estimated 416 residents, of whom 71 were expected to rely on buses, using the transport patterns of local residents. That estimate was not challenged.
The developer provided details of nearby bus routes and service frequency. The judge said the information showed that about 10 buses an hour passed the site, with additional services at peak times. But there was no information about how full the buses were when they reached nearby stops, or whether the expected new passengers could board without displacing existing users. The developer accepted that it had supplied no information about other people competing for available seats.
Residents and other observers had submitted that buses were often full before reaching the area and that frequency did not establish available capacity. The planning authority’s transportation division had also expressed concern about public transport provision given the development’s low parking ratio. The inspector’s report cited bus frequency and estimated capacity based on 85 passengers per bus, but the judge found that theoretical capacity did not show what capacity would be available in practice.
The court also found that the board had not given adequate reasons for rejecting objections about bus capacity. Although the inspector addressed transport concerns elsewhere in the report, the judge said those passages did not explain why the objections were rejected in assessing whether SPPR3 applied.
The judge considered whether the invalid reliance on SPPR3 could be separated from the board’s other stated reason for permitting a material breach of the development plan. She found the reasons were intermingled and that the separate reference to housing delivery was generic and insufficient, on its own, to justify the height breach.
The court granted certiorari quashing the board’s decision to grant permission. The judgment addressed the permission challenged in the judicial review; it did not determine the applicant’s other pleaded grounds, including Core Ground 7, which had not been argued at that stage. Core Grounds 8 and 9 had been abandoned.