The High Court has quashed An Coimisiún Pleanála’s refusal of permission for a proposed home near Lusk, after finding the commission had not meaningfully engaged with its inspector’s recommendation to grant it.
In a judgment delivered on 8 October 2025, Mr Justice Nolan said the commission had failed to explain why it rejected the inspector’s assessment of the applicant’s housing need and her hairdressing business’s service to the rural community. The court ordered the relief sought by the applicant, Jane Phelan Walsh.
Walsh applied to build a two-and-a-half-storey, five-bedroom house at Woodpark Farmhouse, Woodpark, Lusk, County Dublin. Fingal County Council refused the application. On appeal, the commission’s inspector recommended permission, subject to conditions. The commission refused permission on 21 June 2024, concluding that Walsh had not shown that her full-time work predominantly served the rural community or economy as required by Fingal’s development plan.
The commission said the salon was in a village it described as an urban settlement, and that its customers travelled there for the service. It concluded that the activity did not require Walsh to live in the rural area. It also referred to potential ribbon development, but treated that as a new issue and did not pursue it as a reason for refusal.
The judgment records that Walsh had run a hairdressing business in Ballyboughal since 2008 and employed 12 staff. She said she could not afford suitable housing in the area and that the business could close if she could not live nearby. The inspector found that her work served the rural community and recommended permission. The court noted that the proposed site was less than four kilometres from the village, rather than the approximately 5.5 kilometres stated by the planning authority.
The commission argued that its decision gave adequate reasons: the salon was in the village and did not require its owner to live in the countryside. The judge found that the decision did not address the evidence about housing availability and affordability, the applicant’s claimed economic need, or the inspector’s reasoning. He said the commission had simply agreed with the planning authority without explaining why it rejected the inspector’s recommendation.
The ruling concerns the adequacy of the commission’s reasons for refusing permission. The judgment quashes that refusal; it does not grant planning permission for the house.