The Supreme Court has allowed Dublin City Council’s appeal against a High Court ruling which quashed a rezoning adopted during preparation of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028.
The dispute arose after Pat O’Donnell and Company made a submission, through its planning agent Doyle Kent Ltd, concerning a proposed material alteration to the zoning of lands. Under section 12(8)(b)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, the Council’s Chief Executive was required to list persons who made submissions on such proposed changes.
The Chief Executive’s report listed Doyle Kent Ltd rather than Pat O’Donnell and Company. The company relied on that difference in challenging the validity of the Council’s subsequent November 2022 rezoning decision.
Mr Justice Gerard Hogan agreed with a separate judgment of Mr Justice Woulfe that naming the planning agent amounted to adequate compliance with the statutory requirement. Doyle Kent had been retained by Pat O’Donnell and Company and had prepared and submitted the material on its behalf.
The judge added that even if the listing were technically non-compliant, the error was too trivial or insubstantial to justify invalidating the rezoning. Pat O’Donnell and Company knew of the submission made on its behalf, and the court found no realistic prospect that potential third-party objectors could have been misled.
The judgment also addressed the wider question of when failures to comply with statutory requirements should invalidate administrative decisions. Mr Justice Hogan said material non-compliance which affects the integrity of a decision generally must be enforced by the courts. However, minor defects may be excused where the statutory purpose has still been achieved and nobody has suffered material prejudice.
The Supreme Court therefore held that the High Court should not have quashed the rezoning on this ground and allowed Dublin City Council’s appeal.