The High Court quashed An Bord Pleanála’s decision to grant permission for a 192-home development at Balroy House in Castleknock after finding that the board’s conclusion on overshadowing was inadequately supported by evidence or, alternatively, irrational.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys delivered judgment on 13 November 2020 in a judicial review brought by seven residents of the Cottonwood estate, opposite the site on Carpenterstown Road. The board granted permission on 16 March 2020. The residents challenged that decision on several grounds.
The court rejected their domestic-law challenges concerning zoning, density and road safety. It also rejected the argument that the development-plan zoning objective required the project to enhance existing residential amenity, finding that the objective allowed either a positive impact or a minimal negative impact. The residents’ European-law arguments were not decided because the court found it unnecessary to reach them.
The successful ground concerned a daylight and overshadowing assessment. The developer’s report used 21 March as its reference date and concluded there would be no overshadowing of homes to the north, where the applicants live. The residents’ association disputed the assessment, saying the proposal would obscure winter sun. The inspector’s report stated there would be no impact on the northern homes, without retaining the reference-date qualification attached to the developer’s analysis.
The judge said there was no evidence that the board had applied its mind to the cited 2008 and 2011 daylight guidance. The court also found that a single reference date could not support a definitive conclusion of no impact on all possible dates. The inspector’s conclusions were therefore too definite given the limited evidence available to the board.
The order dismissed the applicants’ domestic-law case except for the overshadowing ground, and granted certiorari on that ground. The proceedings against the State respondents were dismissed as moot. The judge said he was minded to remit the matter to the board for reconsideration, but had not yet made that order: the applicants sought an adjournment to make further submissions on its form. The judgment did not determine the eventual outcome of any reconsideration.