The High Court has ordered the removal of An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a 192-home development in Clane, Co Kildare, so it can be quashed. The order is subject to any written submissions by the parties within seven days; the judgment does not say that the planning application was remitted to the board.
In a judgment delivered on 28 July 2023, Mr Justice Humphreys upheld four grounds brought by Clane Community Council against the board’s November 2021 decision to grant permission to Debussy Properties Ltd. The permission concerned a site on the western side of Millicent Road and the southern side of Prosperous Road. The judge directed that, unless the parties applied otherwise in writing within seven days, the order be perfected, with costs to the council against the board, including reserved costs and the costs of written submissions.
The judge found that the permission materially exceeded Clane’s development-plan housing allocation and that the board had not adequately justified that departure under the statutory tests. He rejected the board’s reliance on the project’s scale, a claimed conflict between plan objectives and cited national and regional policies. The judge said the policies relied on concerned matters such as housing location or quality, rather than justifying an increase above the settlement’s planned housing provision.
On parking, the court found a shortfall of 36 spaces, described in the inspector’s report as a 26 per cent deficit. The judge held that the inspector’s conclusion that this was not a material deviation from plan standards could not stand, and that the decision did not identify a basis for departing from those standards.
The court also upheld the council’s challenge concerning a development-plan policy for edge-of-town and greenfield sites, which said apartments would not normally be permitted. The judge concluded that the board had not shown that it considered the applicable policy. He further held that the earlier pre-application consultation could not be relied on after the previous permission had been quashed without remittal, particularly after the county development plan was varied.
The judgment records that the council’s earlier challenge to a separate permission for 142 homes was resolved by consent in October 2021. That permission was quashed without remittal. In the present case, the judge upheld core grounds 1, 2, 4 and 5, each of which he said was independent. A separate challenge concerning bicycle provision had been withdrawn. The court did not decide the council’s modularised challenge to the legislation governing public participation.