The High Court has said it intends to quash An Bord Pleanála’s permission for 299 homes and a childcare facility beside Clonkeen College in Blackrock, after finding errors in how the board assessed the development against the county development plan. Final orders were deferred until the parties are heard.
The scheme, granted permission in December 2021 to Clonkeen Investments DAC, comprises 239 apartments and 60 duplex homes. Ten people challenged the decision. The developer did not take part in the hearing. In a judgment delivered on 30 August 2024, Ms Justice Emily Farrell said the board had wrongly treated the site as outside policies for institutional lands because it lacked an “INST” map symbol and had been fenced off after the development plan took effect.
The land was part of Clonkeen College’s grounds and used for school and community sport when the 2016-2022 plan was made. The judge said that established use remained relevant for planning purposes despite the fence, erected in 2019, and the later agreement to sell the site. She found the board should have considered Policy RES5 and related provisions for institutional lands, as well as Policy OSR11, which creates a general presumption against development of playing fields unless specified circumstances apply. The board had not assessed whether those circumstances arose or whether the presumption was rebutted.
Those errors affected the board’s assessment of zoning, school needs and density, the judge said. She made no finding on whether the scheme in fact materially contravened the plan on those issues, because that assessment involved planning judgement for the board.
The court also found the board’s reasoning on parking inadequate. The scheme provides 248 spaces for the homes and childcare facility, against 412 spaces if the plan’s standard figures were applied without adjustment. The plan allowed flexibility based on design and location, but the inspector’s report did not explain why a reduction of about 40% was appropriate. The board had also misstated the plan’s parking objective, which requires consideration of vehicles attracted to the site alongside policies promoting sustainable travel.
On height, the scheme includes four apartment blocks reaching six storeys. The judge found the board had not properly applied or adequately explained its reliance on two upward height modifiers. The decision that the scheme did not materially contravene the plan on height was therefore invalid.
The judge separately found that some application documents were unavailable on the developer’s website during the required period, contrary to the regulations. But the extent of the breach was unclear, and no prejudice was established. It did not invalidate the permission or deprive the board of jurisdiction. She did not determine the challenge to the appropriate assessment, and said it was unnecessary to resolve the separate issue concerning unit mix.