Colbeam Ltd v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr Justice David Holland
• Judgment Date: 05 August 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 437
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: Record Number: 2022/350 JR

In the Matter of Section 50 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, As Amended

Between

Colbeam Limited

Applicant

and

Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council

Respondent

and

Wendy Jennings and Adrian O'Connor

Notice Parties

[2025] IEHC 437

Record Number: 2022/350 JR

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review – Planning and development – Irrelevant considerations – Applicant seeking certiorari quashing decisions of the respondent – Whether there was material regard to irrelevant considerations

Facts: The applicant, Colbeam Ltd (Colbeam), applied to the High Court seeking, primarily, certiorari quashing: the decision of the respondent, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council (the Council), made on 10 March 2022, to make the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022 to 2028 (the 2022 Development Plan); alternatively, the Council’s decision to make and adopt, within the 2022 Development Plan, the amendments made by way of three motions,122, 123 and 124, passed at a meeting of the elected members of the Council on 15 and 18 December 2020 in adopting the draft development plan. In substance, Colbeam impugned the decisions of: December 2020, adopting the Draft Development Plan zoning Colbeam’s lands for open space and applying the INST Objective thereto; and October 2021, rejecting recommendation by the Chief Executive of the Council to materially alter the Draft Development Plan to zone Colbeam’s lands for residential use and disapply the INST Objective. At trial, Colbeam confined its case to Grounds 3 and 2 of its statement of grounds.

Holland J noted that Ground 3 alleged that: “the Council … had regard to irrelevant considerations including: a. prejudgment on the part of the elected members in respect of any pending or future application or appeal made that includes “residential use” and as, perhaps, a warning that no such applications will be entertained; b. the motive or desire to fetter the discretion of the Council and/or the Board, when making a decision on any pending application or appeal considering any planning or future application or appeal made that includes about suitability of the Colbeam Lands for “residential use” and/or, in particular, to interfere with the extant permission; and/or, c. the “dysfunctional planning legislation”, the perception of An Bord Pleanála and/or its role, function and performance under the Planning Acts, the “controversies” over former religious sites, and the perception of the quantum of religious land “being sold to developers”.” Holland J rejected the allegations of regard to irrelevant considerations.

Holland J noted that Ground 2 alleged that: “The Council … failed to have regard, properly or at all, to relevant considerations including: (a) the Board’s determinations of 2 July 2020 (ABP-304420-19) and 3 June 2021 (ABP-309430-21) that residential use at the Colbeam Lands is consistent with proper planning and sustainable development; (b) the evidence of the Chief Executive that the Colbeam Lands do not function as an area of public open space, the evidence produced by Thornton O’Connor Town Planning that the Colbeam Lands have never comprised public open space, and that the desired public open space, as provided for in the New Plan, cannot be achieved without a residential development; and, (c) the evidence produced by KPMG that open space zoning is not necessary at the Colbeam Lands”. Holland J rejected the allegations of disregard to relevant considerations and dismissed the proceedings.

Proceedings dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF Mr Justice David Holland DELIVERED 5 AUGUST 2025

Contents

JUDGMENT OF MR JUSTICE DAVID HOLLAND DELIVERED 5 AUGUST 2025	1
INTRODUCTION	4
Core Grounds 3 (Irrelevant Considerations) & 2 (Relevant Considerations)	6
CHRONOLOGY & OBSERVATIONS THEREON	8
DLRCC Development Plan 2016	10
Notes: Redmond #1 & Jennings On Interpretation of 2016 Development Plan	12
Judgment in Redmond #1 — 10 March 2020	18
Ce's Proposed Draft Development Plan — October 2020	21
Adoption of Draft Development Plan — December 2020 & Notes Thereon	22
Transcript — 15 December 2020 as to Motions 122, 123 & 124	27
Minutes — 18 December 2020.	30
Adopted Draft Development Plan — Published 11 January 2021	35
Figure 1 – Adopted Draft Plan Zoning Map Extract	35
Thornton O'Connor Report for Colbeam — Student Accommodation SHD — February 2021	36
Colbeam (Thornton O'Connor) Submission to Council as to Adopted Draft Plan — 16 April 2021	37
CE Report to Elected Members on Draft Plan Consultation — July 2021	41
Council Decision to Not Amend Draft Plan (Material Alterations) – September/October 2021	44
Figure 2 – CE's Digital Web Map — 2 September 2021 — extract	45
Council Decision to Not Amend Draft Plan – October 2021	47
Transcript — 21 October 2021	49
Making of 2022 Development Plan — 10 March 2022	54
Figure 3 – 2022 Development Plan Zoning Map Extract	56
JENNINGS v ABP & Colbeam — Judgment 17 February 2023	61
THE LAW	66
Power to Zone Land for Open Space	67
Courts Slow to Interfere with Democratic Decisions	67
No Expectation of Continuation of Zoning	68
Landowners' Rights in Dezoning Decisions	70
Relationship Between Law of Reasons & Relevancy Principle & Practicalities of Political Debate	70
Zoning Decisions — Reasons and Considerations	77
s.12(11) PDA 2000	77
Alleged Irrelevant Considerations & Issues Arising	77
Are Reasons for Rezoning Required and, if so, to What Extent?	78
Where Are Reasons To Be Found?	81
Transcripts or like records as they Disclose Reasons & Considerations – How are they to be Read?	87
COLBEAM'S 8 PROPOSITIONS OF LAW	96
WERE THE IMPUGNED CONSIDERATIONS IRRELEVANT?	102
Moral Obligation	102
Outmanoeuvring the Board	104
Outmanoeuvring the Board – Conclusions as to Relevance and Fettering	110
Owe it to the Community	112
WAS REGARD TO ALLEGED MORAL OBLIGATION MATERIAL?	113
CONCLUSION — GROUND 3 – IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS	114
GROUND 2 – FAILURE TO CONSIDER PROPER PLANNING AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT & RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS	114
G2 – Statement of Grounds & Colbeam's Position	114
G2 — Council's Position	115
G2 – Discussion & Decision	116
CE Report of July 2021	116
Thornton O'Connor Submissions for Colbeam — April 2021	117
KPMG Report – October 2021	118
Colbeam Lands Don't Function as Public Open Space and Won't Without Development	119
Prior Planning Permission Decisions	120
Proper Planning & Sustainable Development	121
Irrationality	122
CONCLUSION — GROUND 2 – RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS	123
CONCLUSION – OVERALL	123

INTRODUCTION1

1. In these proceedings, the Applicant (“Colbeam”) seeks, primarily, certiorari quashing:

• • The decision of the Respondent, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council (the “Council”), made on 10 March 2022, to make the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022 to 2028 (the “2022 Development Plan”). alternatively,

• • The Council's decision to make and adopt, within the 2022 Development Plan, the amendments made by way of three motions, 122, 123 and 124, passed2 at a meeting of the elected members of the Council on 15 and 18 December 2020 in adopting the draft development plan.

2. Whatever about the form of the proceedings, in reality Colbeam does not seek to quash the entire 2022 Development Plan. Colbeam's lands, comprising a 2.12-hectare site at Our Lady's Grove, Goatstown Road, Dublin 14 (“the Colbeam Lands”), had been zoned for residential use in the 2016 Development Plan. The 2022 Development Plan, in effect by the three motions:

• • Rezoned3 the Colbeam Lands from residential to open space use – to Colbeam's obvious commercial disadvantage.

• • Continued the application in the 2016 Development Plan to the Colbeam Lands of an INST Objective4 as to development of institutional lands and open space requirements imposed on such developments. Also, the terms of the INST Objective were amended in the 2022 Development Plan to require that the open space be specifically public open space.

3. Colbeam seeks specifically to quash those elements of the Development Plan. In substance they impugn the decisions of:

• ○December 2020, adopting the Draft Development Plan zoning the Colbeam Lands for open space and applying the INST Objective thereto.

• ○October 2021, rejecting recommendation by the Chief Executive of the Council (the CE”)

  to materially alter the Draft Development Plan to zone the Colbeam Lands for residential use and disapply the INST Objective.

It is in this more limited sense that I will usually refer in this judgment to “the Impugned Decision”. This view seems to me to accord with the Supreme Court's approach in Killegland.5

4. The Colbeam Lands comprise about 35% of the larger former campus of Our Lady's Grove School and Convent of about 6 hectares (“the OLG Campus”). The OLG Campus has been substantially redeveloped over time6 and now comprises, broadly, the following:

• • In its northern half,7 a secondary school, a primary school, a childcare facility, a hockey pitch, three tennis courts, a basketball court and other school-associated open spaces.

• • In its south-eastern quadrant8 a convent9 and a residential development, “The Grove”, built in or about 2016/2017 by a developer to which I will refer as “Durkan Estates”.

• • In its south-western quadrant or corner,10 the Colbeam Lands. They formerly included a primary school – since demolished and replaced in the north-east of the OLG Campus – and associated grounds. I am happy from the...