O'Flynn Capital Partners v Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council

JudgeMr Justice Robert Haughton
Judgment Date10 August 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] IEHC 480
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number[2015 No. 514 J.R.]
Date10 August 2016



[2016] IEHC 480

Haughton Robert J.

[2015 No. 514 J.R.]




Environment, Transport & Planning – Planning and Development Act 2000Planning and Development Regulations 2001 – Strategic Development Zone – Flood Risk Assessment – Preliminary Objection – Failure of use of the available alternative remedy.

Facts: The applicant challenged, by way of judicial review, the decision of the respondent refusing planning permission for the development of a residential scheme. The applicant claimed that the proposed development failed to provide a high quality site specific design response for the site. The applicant argued that the proposed development would not be consistent with the scheme in regard to the design and sequencing of the development. The respondent argued that the applicant failed contrary to s. 50 of the Act of 2000 to set out any grounds for some of the impugning reasons. The applicant failed 'to use the available alternative remedy.'

Mr. Justice Robert Haughton held that the applicant's request for an order quashing the decision of the respondent would be granted. The Court observed that it would be inappropriate to avail of the power in s. 50A(9) to declare invalid or quash only a part of the impugned decision. The Court further ordered that the matter would be remitted to the respondent to be determined in accordance with law.

JUDGMENT of Mr Justice Robert Haughton delivered on the 10th day of August 2016.

In these proceedings the applicant challenges by way of judicial review the decision of the respondent, made on the 31st July, 2015, refusing planning permission for the development of a residential scheme on lands located at Beech Park, Old Bray Road, Cabinteely, Dublin 18.


On 8th June, 2015, the applicant applied to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council (the 'Council' or the 'respondent') for planning permission for one hundred and sixty four residential units to be called 'Beech Park' on a 5.3 hectare site adjoining the N11. As part of the proposed development, in a rectangular area at the northern extremity of the development site, the applicant also sought planning permission for the construction of a section of roadway, approximately 150 meters in length ('the Druid's Glen Road'), linking with a planned signalised junction ('junction Q') on the N11. The Druid's Glen Road section of the site falls within a 'Strategic Development Zone' ('SDZ'), a planning scheme for the Cherrywood area and, when constructed, the road will give critical access for extensive new development on lands to the west of the applicant's site owned by third parties and falling within the SDZ. However, the bulk of the applicant's development site, upon which all of the residential units of Beech Park would be constructed, lies alongside the N11 but outside the SDZ. The application also sought permission to construct a spur road within the SDZ to connect Beech Park to the Druid's Glen Road as access onto the N11 would not otherwise be permitted. It is necessary to refer to the statutory origin and status of the SDZ.

Strategic Development Zone

On 25th May, 2015, Part IX of the Planning and Development Act 2000 ('the Act') introduced into Irish planning law the new concept of Strategic Development Zones. Under s. 166 these may be designated by the government 'to facilitate' specified development 'of economic or social importance to the State'. Before designation is made the Minister for Environment and Local Government must consult with the relevant development agency or planning authority. The SDZ is then designated by Ministerial order. Under s. 168 the relevant development agency or local authority must then prepare a 'draft planning scheme' for all or part of the SDZ, which is a detailed written statement and plan indicating the manner in which it is intended the site is to be developed and in particular detailing the matters set out in s. 168(2)(a)-(g). These include the types of development, the extent of proposed development and:-

'(d) proposals relating to transportation, including public transportation, the roads layout, the provision of parking spaces and traffic management'.

An 'appropriate assessment' of the draft scheme under Natura 2000 must be carried out in accordance with Part XAB. Section 169 then prescribes the process, providing for public consultation, that must be undergone before the draft planning scheme can be adopted by the members of a planning authority. It may then be appealed to An Bord Pleanála ('the Board'). The Board may direct an oral hearing and, following that, may approve the planning scheme, with or without modifications, or may refuse to approve it. In considering its task the Board must '...consider the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and consider the provisions of the development plan, the provisions of the housing strategy, the provisions of any special amenity area order or the conservation or preservation of any European Site...' (section 169(8)).


Once a planning scheme is confirmed 'Strategic Development Zone' is now defined under s. 165 as the 'site or sites to which a planning scheme made under section 169 applies'. Thus it is no longer the area designated by the Government that is critical but rather the actual site or sites covered by the planning scheme which may, as in the present case, only extend to part of the original area designated as SDZ.


The importance of a planning scheme is the manner in which planning applications for development within the SDZ must then be considered and determined. This is governed by section 170:-

'(1) Where an application is made to a planning authority under section 34 for a development in a strategic development zone, that section and any permission regulations shall apply, subject to the other provisions of this section.

(2) Subject to the provisions of Part X or Part XAB, or both of those Parts as appropriate, a planning authority shall grant permission in respect of an application for a development in a strategic development zone where it is satisfied that the development, where carried out in accordance with the application or subject to any conditions which the planning authority may attach to a permission, would be consistent with any planning scheme in force for the land in question, and no permission shall be granted for any development which would not be consistent with such a planning scheme.

(3) Notwithstanding section 37, no appeal shall lie to the Board against a decision of a planning authority on an application for permission in respect of a development in a strategic development zone.

(4) Where the planning authority decides to grant permission for a development in a strategic development zone, the grant shall be deemed to be given on the date of the decision.'

Emphasis is added to wording the meaning of which has particular significance in this case.


It was submitted by counsel for the applicant that the wording of Part IX, and in particular s. 170, show that the objective of the legislature was to facilitate important development in three respects:-

(i) by providing certainty in that developers are assured that if their planning application is consistent with the relevant planning scheme they 'shall' be granted planning permission (subject only to any conditions that the planning authority may lawfully attach);

(ii) that permissions will be obtained speedily in that the planning scheme has more detail than a Development Plan and is therefore a blueprint to enable matters to progress more quickly – and there is no appeal permitted to the Board; and,

(iii) that the development is infrastructure led because the planning scheme provides for planned and coordinated development of infrastructures in the planning scheme area.


In my view these are reasonable inferences as to the statutory purpose behind Part IX and from consideration of the wording in Part IX as a whole. They also reflect the views of the Council as expressed in the SDZ, namely the Cherrywood Planning Scheme ('the Planning Scheme') where it states under s. 1.4. thereof entitled 'Background':–

'Why an SDZ for Cherrywood?

It was recognised that Cherrywood had the potential to be a major new residential and employment settlement in the County and the Region in the context of the sustainable provision of all associated social and physical infrastructure.

The Planning Scheme is capable of providing greater certainty regarding the phasing and delivery of new development, in tandem with the provision of essential infrastructure to serve and facilitate the development. The life of the Planning Scheme is not limited to the legal timeframe set down by the Planning and Development Acts.'

The Cherrywood Planning Scheme

In 2008 the Government was requested by the Council to consider designating Cherrywood as a SDZ. On 25th May, 2010, Cherrywood became so designated by government order ( S.I. No. 535 of 2010). The Council then prepared a draft planning scheme which was put on public display on 29th February, 2012. After a public consultation process the respondent's elected representatives resolved to make a number of material alterations. These went through further public consultation, and in December, 2012, the elected members resolved to make the Planning Scheme as amended and public notice of this was given on 17th December, 2012. From this decision there were sixteen appeals to An Bord Pleanála. An oral hearing was held over fifteen days in March/April, 2013, before an inspector Mr Tom Tabette. His report of 14th August, 2013, recommended approval by the Board subject to certain modifications....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Spencer Place Development Company Ltd v Dublin City Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 30 May 2019
    ...as follows in the judgment of the High Court (Haughton J.) in O'Flynn Capital Partners v. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2016] IEHC 480. The court drew a comparison between the function under section 170 of the PDA 2000 and the function of certifying development proposals under the......
  • Element Power Ireland Ltd v an Bord Pleanála
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 28 September 2017
    ...taint the overall decision.' 91 In analysing this decision in my judgment in O'Flynn Capital Partners v. Dun Laoghaire County Council [2016] IEHC 480, I took the view, at para. 243, that 'the decision of Kearns J. is at best obiter on the point and an argument could be advanced that s.50A(......
  • Ironborn Real Estate Ltd v Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 July 2023
    ...a matter for the statutory bodies charged with those functions.” 122 In O'Flynn Capital Partners v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2016] IEHC 480, the High Court (Haughton J) took the same view as Fennelly J and rejected an argument that Kearns J's judgment was authority for any gene......
  • EPUK Investments Ltd v Environmental Protection Agency
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 10 February 2023
    ...Pleanála [2018] IESC 39 (Supreme Court, Clarke CJ, 31 July 2018) 577 O'Flynn Capital Partners v. Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2016] IEHC 480. 578 Special Planning Policy 579 Adopted pursuant to s.28 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. 580 In a judgment concurring with the re......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT