Judgment: 2026-02-16 · Court archive

High Court rejects challenge to refusal of 89-home Portlaoise development

High Court, Planning & Environment · [2026] IEHC 78

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Garryduff Properties Limited
  • An Coimisiún Pleanála
  • Laois County Council
  • Mr Justice David Holland
What

High Court rejects challenge to refusal of 89-home Portlaoise development

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Kilminchy
  • High Court
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has rejected a challenge by Garryduff Properties Limited to the refusal of planning permission for an 89-unit residential development at Kilminchy in Portlaoise.

The High Court has rejected a challenge by Garryduff Properties Limited to the refusal of planning permission for an 89-unit residential development at Kilminchy in Portlaoise.

Mr Justice David Holland dismissed the judicial review proceedings on 16 February 2026, upholding An Coimisiún Pleanála’s November 2023 decision to refuse permission because the proposed housing mix did not comply with the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027.

Garryduff originally applied to Laois County Council in July 2021 for 85 three-bedroom houses. Following a request for further information, it revised the proposal to 89 units, including ten one- and two-bedroom apartments. The company itself stated that just over 11% of the scheme would consist of those smaller units.

While the application was still being processed, a new county development plan took effect in March 2022. Its Housing Policy Objective HPO1 required residential schemes of ten units or more to ensure that 35% of development catered for single- and two-person households.

The council granted permission, but a third-party appeal followed. An inspector initially recommended permission. After being asked by the Commission to reconsider housing mix under the new development plan, she found the scheme deficient but still recommended approval.

The Commission ultimately refused permission solely because the proposed 11% provision fell short of the 35% objective.

Garryduff argued that it should have been specifically invited to comment on HPO1 under section 137 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The court assumed for argument that there may have been a breach of that provision but refused relief because Garryduff had already had a fair opportunity to address the new development plan during the appeal and chose not to do so.

The court also rejected complaints that the Commission failed to explain its refusal adequately. The judge found that the 35% requirement and Garryduff’s own 11% figure made the reason for refusal clear.

All grounds were dismissed, with final orders listed for 23 February 2026.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review