The High Court has refused An Bord Pleanála leave to appeal a ruling that quashed its permission for a strategic housing development on part of the former Premier Dairies site in Finglas, Dublin 11.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald ruled on 28 January 2021 that none of four proposed points of law should be certified for an appeal to the Court of Appeal. The application was decided on written submissions, without an oral hearing. The judge said the Board had not shown that an appeal was appropriate under the statutory test.
The underlying judicial review was brought by Rita O’Neill on behalf of Glenhill Estate and Premier Square residents. In July 2020, the court quashed the Board’s November 2019 permission for Ruirside Developments Ltd’s scheme. The proposed buildings ranged from 18.9 metres to 32.7 metres, above the 16-metre limit in the Dublin City Development Plan.
The July ruling found, on the material before the court, that the Board had not lawfully justified the development’s material contravention of the plan and had not given sufficient reasons for its decision. The judge identified unresolved inconsistencies between the inspector’s report and the Board’s decision, including over public transport, the development’s effect on Glenhill Road homes and the proposed mitigation of predicted interference with telecommunications signals. He did not decide the planning merits afresh, and said the issues might have explanations that were not apparent in the materials before the court.
The Board sought to appeal on questions about how the Building Height Guidelines’ specific planning policy requirement SPPR3(A) applies, the reasons required when the Board accepts a different approach from its inspector, and whether the 2016 housing legislation affects that duty. The judge accepted that some questions could raise points of exceptional public importance. But he concluded that an appeal on those questions would not change the outcome: the finding that the Board had failed to give sufficient reasons would remain.
The court’s decision concerns only the application for leave to appeal. Ruirside did not participate in that application, although it had reserved the right to seek an order remitting the matter to the Board. Any such application was directed to be returnable for remote mention on 18 February 2021.
On costs, the judge said he was provisionally of the view that the Board should pay Ms O’Neill’s costs of the leave application. He allowed the Board 14 days from delivery of the judgment to make submissions against that view; the judgment does not record a final costs order.