The High Court has ruled that An Bord Pleanála must reconsider a proposed 1,005-home development at City Block 9, North Wall Quay and Mayor Street Upper, Dublin 1, from the point just before it refused permission in May 2021.
Mr Justice Nolan’s judgment, delivered on 7 November 2024, addresses the stage at which the planning application should be remitted after the parties agreed that the refusal should be quashed. The court did not grant planning permission or direct the Board to hold an oral hearing.
Waterside Block 9 Developments Limited applied in January 2021 for permission to build 1,005 residential units, in three blocks ranging from eight to 45 storeys, over a three-level basement. An Bord Pleanála refused permission on 20 May 2021, considering that a High Court ruling in the Spencer Place case meant it could not permit a development that materially contravened the North Lotts Planning Scheme.
That position changed after the Court of Appeal overturned the Spencer Place ruling in June 2023. The Supreme Court refused Dublin City Council’s application for leave to appeal in February 2024.
The developer argued that the application should return to the Board’s May 2021 consideration, after it had accepted the inspector’s assessment of potential impacts and said outstanding issues could be addressed through clarification and elaboration at an oral hearing. The judgment records that the Board had not finally decided to hold such a hearing.
The Board argued that the application should be reconsidered in accordance with law, including any current decision on whether an oral hearing was required. It said the court should not pre-empt its planning functions, and pointed to changes in the Board’s composition and in the development plan and planning scheme.
The judge rejected the Board’s argument that directing the return point would amount to micromanagement. He said the Board remained free to decide whether to hold an oral hearing and, after considering the evidence and other relevant matters, whether to refuse permission.
The court concluded that the matter should return to the point where the Board had accepted the inspector’s assessment and recommendation, before the refusal based on the Spencer Place ruling. It said the Board could consider matters that had changed since its earlier consideration. The judgment ends by stating that counsel would be heard on the precise order to be made; it does not record the final wording of that order.