The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a 366-home development at Docklands Innovation Park on East Wall Road, Dublin, after finding defects in the board’s reasons, daylight assessment and the developer’s application form. The judge ruled that the matter should not be sent back to the board for reconsideration.
Humphreys J. made the order on 14 May 2021 in a judicial review brought by Atlantic Diamond Limited, a commercial tenant of an industrial unit due to remain at the site. EWR Innovation Park Limited was the notice party. The proposed development included six residential blocks, childcare facilities and associated works, while retaining three operating industrial units.
The court said the board had not clearly explained why it rejected key submissions about the scheme’s claimed unprecedented mix of housing and industry, heavy-goods-vehicle movements and outdoor industrial equipment. The applicant had raised concerns about noise, fumes and vehicle activity, including at unsocial hours. The judge said the board could prefer one set of expert opinions over another in matters of planning judgement, but the decision did not give the main reasons for rejecting these central concerns.
The judge also found the board had endorsed a daylight assessment that treated rooms combining kitchens and living rooms as living rooms, applying a 1.5% average daylight factor (ADF) standard. The relevant British Standard required the higher standard for a room used for combined purposes; the judgment said the appropriate figure was 2% for the assessed sample locations. The board had not adequately examined that issue or explained why the standards were not met.
A separate defect concerned statutory enforcement notices. The developer had answered “yes” to the application form’s question about such notices but did not provide the requested details. The judgment said the prescribed form required those details and stated that failure to complete it or provide required information would lead to the board refusing to deal with the application. The judge held the application was invalid.
The board had granted permission in August 2020, generally in accordance with its inspector’s report and subject to conditions. It had found that the development would materially contravene the development plan on building heights, but considered that contravention permissible under planning legislation and the building-height guidelines.
The court did not decide the European-law issues, saying they did not arise after the applicant succeeded on domestic-law grounds. Its order quashed the permission, ruled that remittal was not appropriate, and directed the parties to liaise with the List Registrar about listing consequential matters.