The High Court has found that the reasons given for removing residential zoning from a Ballindooley Developments site in Coolagh, Galway, were legally inadequate because they did not identify which reasons applied specifically to that site.
In a ruling delivered on 20 February 2025, Mr Justice David Holland directed the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the Office of the Planning Regulator (OPR) to provide statements identifying the reasons that informed their respective decisions. The judicial review brought by Ballindooley Developments Limited remains part-heard, and the trial is to be adjourned while the statements are prepared.
The ruling concerns the OPR’s March 2023 recommendation and the Minister’s subsequent direction under the Planning and Development Act 2000. The direction amended Galway City Council’s 2023–2029 development plan, including by removing the site’s residential zoning and leaving it unzoned. The company challenges the decisions on several grounds.
The site had residential zoning in the 2011 and 2017 development plans. Galway City Council’s elected members included residential zoning in the 2023–2029 plan, but the Minister’s direction overrode that decision. The court noted that the direction affected multiple sites and that the Minister’s position was that not every stated reason applied to every property. The court said it was difficult to determine the complete set of reasons specific to this site.
At the invitation of the Minister and the OPR, the judge found the reasons deficient specifically because they failed to identify which of the reasons stated applied to the site. He stressed that the required statements could identify only reasons already given and considered at the time; they could not add, explain or amplify reasons. Each body must act independently, using only material that had been before it when it made its decision, and support its statement with an affidavit confirming that the identified reasons informed its decision at the time.
The ruling does not decide the remaining grounds of the judicial review or quash the direction. The judge said the company may pursue its other arguments when the trial resumes, including challenges to the substance of the reasons once identified. If the required affidavit cannot truthfully be sworn, the parties may seek further directions. The parties were asked to agree a draft order, and the case was listed for mention on 3 March; the order was not to be perfected before then.