The High Court has allowed an applicant to add an objective-bias ground to his challenge to a planning permission for co-living accommodation in Dublin 15. The decision concerns the scope of the case that may proceed; it does not determine whether the alleged bias occurred or whether the permission should be quashed.
The proceedings challenge An Bord Pleanála’s December 2020 permission to demolish a public house on the Old Navan Road, Blanchardstown, and build co-living spaces. The applicant, Barry O’Lone, had already brought judicial review proceedings against that permission in February 2021.
The proposed amendment alleges that Paul Hyde, then a deciding board member and deputy chairperson, took part in the decision despite his brother Stefan Hyde being a partner in Maurice Johnson & Partners, a firm that the applicant says advised the developer on the project. The applicant argues that this created a conflict of interest and a reasonable apprehension of bias. These are allegations in the proposed grounds, not findings by the court.
The amendment request followed media reports in 2022 about Paul Hyde’s involvement in planning decisions in which the firm had submitted reports or acted as an inspector. O’Lone said he became aware of The Ditch report in August 2022 and sought the amendment in October. The developer opposed the request; the board did not.
Justice Humphreys held that the statutory time limit for starting planning judicial review proceedings did not apply in the same way to an application to amend grounds in an existing case. He assessed the request by reference to arguability, the explanation for the delay and whether allowing the change would cause irremediable prejudice. He found the proposed point arguable, no irremediable prejudice, and an explanation had been given. He acknowledged that the applicant could have acted sooner, but concluded that refusing the amendment would deprive him of a legally arguable point.
The judge also gave weight to the board’s lack of objection and the public interest in integrity in public decision-making. He expressly said he was not assuming the allegations would be substantiated. He did not rely on questions about what the developer knew or when, and made no decision on the relevance of the absence of evidence from the developer.
The court gave O’Lone liberty to file the amended grounds, with a verifying affidavit, within two weeks. The board then has three weeks to respond, followed by a further week for the developer. The case is to be listed for mention after those filings. Costs were reserved, subject to submissions within the specified periods. The underlying challenge to the permission remains unresolved.