The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s permission for 161 homes and associated facilities at Dolphin Park in Crumlin, finding that the board misread planning rules protecting open space and failed to explain key parts of its decision.
Mr Justice Humphreys made an order of certiorari in three judicial review cases on 25 February 2022. The cases challenged permission for a development at Templeogue Synge Street GAA club grounds. The order quashes the board’s decision; the court listed the cases for 7 March for any consequential orders.
The proposal included 161 homes, a replacement clubhouse, parking, pitch improvements, floodlighting, netting, a crèche and an ESB substation. Dublin City Council had refused permission in June 2019, citing the scale of development on land zoned for open space, traffic and parking concerns. The board later granted permission, generally following its inspector’s recommendation.
The judge found that the board had not properly applied the city development plan’s Z9 zoning requirements. Those rules allow consideration of development on such lands only in highly exceptional circumstances and subject to conditions including need, limited and ancillary development, and retention of the sporting use. The court said the board had not engaged with the exceptional-circumstances test and had treated the club’s financial position as relevant. It also found that the board had misunderstood the requirement that development itself serve the long-term sporting use, and had adopted the wrong test of whether it would facilitate improvements.
The judgment also identified failures to give reasons on material issues. These included the effect on existing uses around the access laneway, potential ball impacts on the proposed apartments, and the board’s disagreement with the council’s concerns about setting a precedent for development on other open spaces. The judge separately found that the board’s statement describing a 17% reduction in open space was erroneous: the housing occupied that proportion, but other uses would also remove open space.
The court did not uphold every challenge. It rejected several arguments about traffic drawings and sightline calculations, including claims that were not clearly pleaded or had not been raised in sufficient detail before the board. The judge also concluded that a legal agreement with the council was not required before permission, and that the challenge to the absence of a condition requiring one had not been pleaded.
Because the applicants succeeded on domestic law grounds, the judge did not decide the European law challenges, including those concerning environmental assessment and appropriate assessment. The notice party had withdrawn from the proceedings, but the cases continued because the permission could otherwise benefit a successor in title.