AAI Baneshane Ltd v an Coimisiún Pleanála

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 21 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 641
• Docket Number: [H.JR.2025.0000042]
• Court: High Court

In the Matter of an Application Pursuant to Sections 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000

Between

AAI Baneshane Limited

Applicant

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála

Respondent

and

Fingal County Council

Notice Party

[2025] IEHC 641

[H.JR.2025.0000042]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Judicial review – Planning permission – Lack of reasons – Applicant seeking an order of certiorari quashing the refusal of permission – Whether there was a lack of reasons

Facts: The applicant, AAI Baneshane Ltd, applied to the High Court seeking an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála (the Board/Commission), dated 13 November 2024, refusing permission in respect of application ref ABP 315425-22, and an order remitting the application to the Board to be determined in accordance with law. The proposed development comprised the construction of 99 build-to-rent apartments across two blocks on lands at Canterbury Gate, Old Navan Road, Mulhuddart, Dublin 15. The core grounds of appeal were as follows: (1) misinterpretation of guidelines/irrationality; (2) lack of reasons regarding accessible location; (3) lack of reasons regarding layout; and (4) failure to consider condition regarding phasing.

Held by Humphreys J that: (i) an applicant bears the onus of proof to demonstrate grounds for relief including to show that there was no material on which a decision could have been based; (ii) the applicant had not discharged that onus; (iii) decisions should not be quashed for non-material errors; (iv) the fact that the developer’s own documentation as it stood as of the date of the decision was capable of being read by a reasonable decision-taker as supporting a conclusion that the site was not accessible as defined by guidelines led to the conclusion that any error about lack of reasons was not material; (v) a party cannot adopt a stance in judicial proceedings inconsistent with its stance before the decision-taker; (vi) the fact the developer’s own material as it stood as of the date of the decision was capable of being read by a reasonable decision-taker as supporting a conclusion that the site was not accessible as defined by guidelines militated against the grant of relief by judicial review on a contrary basis; (vii) a decision must be read as valid and as making sense if such an interpretation is available; (viii) the decision in terms of the issue regarding site layout could be read as making sense; (ix) if the inspector gives reasons for a particular conclusion, there is an obligation on the Commission to give reasons for a contrary conclusion; (x) the inspector did not address the issue of the problematic site layout on the assumption of the application being dealt with in its own terms and hence any enhanced duty to give reasons for a contrary conclusion did not arise; (xi) a planning decision-taker is not obliged to reconfigure an application by conditions to produce a different development to that applied for; (xii) the Commission’s failure to save the application by conditions did not give rise to grounds for certiorari; (xiii) reasons for the reasons are not required, thus where general reasons are given in a policy or otherwise there is no obligation for a decision-taker to give reasons for not making exceptions to that; and (xiv) there was no obligation on the Commission to go further than to identify the relevant ministerial guidance, which was not being complied with, in giving reasons for declining to impose conditions that would have saved the application from such a problem.

Humphreys J dismissed the proceedings.

Proceedings dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Friday the 21st day of November 2025

1 . A developer who decides to split a development into multiple applications runs the risk of creating a problem for themselves that would not otherwise exist. The problem is that a planning decision-taker should be satisfied that each application has to stand alone as a proper development. Even if that is the case, where there is an overall project involved, the decision-taker has to be satisfied with the overall development also. A project only makes sense in its context, and part of that context has to be the plan for the overall site. To put it another way, splitting the project means that the decision-taker has to be satisfied with the project both on the assumption that the other part of the project is built, and also on the assumption that it is not built. Of course, project-splitting in and of itself is not unlawful (only if it gives rise to evasion or dilution of EU law assessments, which is not an issue here), but perhaps this is just another example of the point that just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do it.

Geographical context

2 . The proposed development ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/315425) comprises the construction of 99 build-to-rent apartments across two blocks on lands at Canterbury Gate, Old Navan Road, Mulhuddart, Dublin 15. The site is positioned between the M3 to the south and the Old Navan Road to the north. The village of Mulhuddart is located c. 500 m to the south-east of the site. Blanchardstown Shopping Centre is also located c. 2 km to the site's south-east. To the north of the site on the opposite side of the Old Navan Road is the Tolka Valley Park. The site is bound to the east by an existing residential development known as ‘Canterbury Gate’ within the control of the applicant, and to the east of the site are a range of commercial/employment uses which include the ‘Maxol M3 Mulhuddart Services’ service station, the RSA Driving Test Centre and the ‘M3 Van Centre’. The site is in the vicinity of https://maps.app.goo.gl/fCm8h8HwP8AYK1PW9.

Facts

3 . On 27 October 2021, the developer (in a different corporate form – NME Capital Ltd) sought permission ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/311771) for a strategic housing development (SHD) SHD/013/20 (ABP-311771–21) similar to the combined nature of the Phase I and II applications subsequently made.

4 . That SHD application was refused by the commission on 2 March 2022.

5 . The developer then made the fateful decision to split the application into two separate normal planning applications, of which this is Phase I.

6 . It's not clear why two separate applications were made and indeed the developer didn't see fit to explain that – on the face of things the most plausible explanation (bearing in mind that the combined project was similar to the previous SHD application) is project-splitting to avail of ordinary planning rather than what would otherwise be mandatory SHD (s. 4 of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016).

7 . On 7 October 2022, the applicant applied for permission to Fingal County Council (the council) to construct 99 build-to-rent apartments at Canterbury Gate, Mulhuddart, Dublin 15 (reg. ref. FW22A/0228) (Phase 1).

8 . On 19 October 2022, the applicant applied for permission to the council to construct 91 build-to-rent apartments at Canterbury Gate, Mulhuddart, Dublin 15 (reg. ref. FW22A/0237) (Phase 2).

9 . On 25 November 2022, the council refused permission for Phase 1.

10 . On 1 December 2022, the council refused permission for Phase 2.

11 . In December 2022, the applicant appealed the decisions in respect of Phases 1 (link above) and 2 ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/315450) to the commission and they were assigned references ABP 315425–22 and ABP-315450–23 respectively.

12 . On 30 January 2023, the council made submission in respect of both appeals and stated that in its view permission should be refused on the grounds that the development would be premature, until such time as the route for the proposed N3 Littlepace to M50 upgrade was finalised.

13 . On 30 January 2024, the commission's inspector carried out an inspection of the site for Phases 1 and 2.

14 . On 28 February 2024, the inspector completed reports in respect of Phases 1 and 2 and recommended that permission be granted.

15 . On 22 May 2024, the commission invited the applicant and the council, pursuant to s. 137 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (the 2000 Act), in both appeals, to make submissions on the new development plan that had come into effect and the Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlement Guidelines for Planning Authorities (the 2024 Guidelines) that came into effect in January 2024 ( https://www.opr.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Sustainable-Residential-Development-and-Compact-Settlements-Guidelines-for-Planning-Authorities.pdf).

16 . On 7 June 2024, the council responded to the commission's s. 137 notice and stated that it had no further submissions to make.

17 . On 17 June 2024, the applicant responded to the commission's s. 137 notice.

18 . On 20 June 2024, the commission, pursuant to s. 131 of the 2000 Act, invited the council to comment on the response of the applicant in respect of the appeals concerning Phases 1 and 2.

19 . On 10 July 2024, the council responded to the s. 131 notice in respect of the appeals concerning Phases 1 and 2 and stated that it had no further submissions to make.

20 . On 20 August 2024, the commission issued a further request pursuant to s. 137 of the 2000 Act to both the applicant and the council in respect of the appeal concerning Phase 1, stating the notice superseded the notice of the 22 May 2024. In addition to requesting comment on the issues raised in the original notice, the applicant was invited to comment as to how residential amenities requirements for Phase 1 would be met in the absence of Phase 2.

21 . On 6 September 2024, the council replied to the s. 137 notice recording that it had no further submissions to make.

22 . On 13 September 2024, the applicant responded to the s. 137 notice, stating how the recreational amenities requirement for Phase 1...