Foran v an Coimisiún Pleanála and Ors

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice David Holland
• Judgment Date: 23 January 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 23
• Docket Number: Record No: 2024/725JR

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

Between:

Shane Foran

Applicant

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála 1

The Minister for Transport,

Ireland & The Attorney General

Respondents

and

Glenveagh Living Limited

Notice Party

[2026] IEHC 23

Record No: 2024/725JR

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & Environment

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Planning and development – Judicial review – Planning and Development Act 2000 s. 28(1) – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether the impugned decision was invalid as it failed to have regard to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines contrary to s. 28(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000

Facts: The notice party, Glenveagh Living Ltd (Glenveagh), applied to Galway City Council (the Council) on 10 January 2023 for planning permission for a proposed development known as the Knocknacarra District Large-scale Residential Development (LRD). It was an LRD of 227 apartments in 7 blocks, commercial units, community, tenant amenity and childcare facilities and associated car parking, bike parking, road works and road realignments at Gort Na Bro, Rahoon, Galway. On 15 November 2023, the Council refused Glenveagh’s application. Glenveagh appealed that refusal to the first respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála (the Commission), on 12 December 2023. The applicant, Mr Foran, made a submission to the Commission on 17 January 2024. The Commission’s Inspector, by report dated 14 March 2024, recommended that permission be granted. The Commission on 4 April 2024 decided, reversing the Council’s refusal, to grant permission generally in accordance with its Inspector’s recommendation and it did so by order (the Impugned Decision) dated 10 April 2024. Mr Foran sought to have the Impugned Decision quashed on the following grounds: (1) the Impugned Decision was invalid as it failed to have regard to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines, contrary to s. 28(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and/or to give reasons for not following those Guidelines; and (2) the Impugned Decision was invalid as inconsistent with the Climate Act 2021 and the Climate Action Plans and/or as failing to give reasons for not addressing the plans.

Held by the High Court (Holland J) that Mr Foran’s challenge was merits-based, he had not pleaded irrationality though he complained of it in argument and, not being himself qualified to give expert evidence (as he was the applicant), he had failed to adduce admissible evidence of either a flaw in the Impugned Decision or, even assuming such a flaw, that there was any reason to consider that such flaw - primarily, less than optimal cycle lanes over something less than 300m - might matter in substance such that discretionary relief might issue. Mr Gorman’s expert evidence stood uncontradicted by admissible evidence and Holland J accepted it. Holland J held that Mr Foran should have made, but failed to make, much of his complaints to the Commission.

Holland J held that, as he had rejected both the live grounds on which judicial review was sought, he would dismiss the proceedings.

Proceedings dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF Mr Justice David Holland, DELIVERED 23 JANUARY 2026

Contents

JUDGMENT OF MR JUSTICE DAVID HOLLAND DELIVERED 23 January 2026	1
INTRODUCTION	3
Cycling Infrastructure – a Note	5
Role of Private Developers	6
SITE & ENVIRONS	7
Figure 1 Site, Proposed Development and Proposed Road Layout	7
IMPUGNED DECISION	10
GROUNDS ABANDONED — DMURS & SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY POLICY 2002 — & GROUNDS Remaining	11
Abandoned	11
Remaining	12
SOME PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW	12
Reilly	12
Judicial Review is not Appeal — the Commission is Expert – The Court is Not	17
Reasons — RWWA	17
Whether Relevant Matters Considered & Obligation to Have Regard	23
THE CDM	24
MATERIALS BEFORE COMMISISON	26
EIAR — December 2022	26
TTA — December 2022	27
Infrastructure Design Report – December 2022	29
Mr Foran's Observation – February 2023	29
TII Observation – February 2023 & Comment Thereon	29
RfI — March 2023 & RRfI — August 2023	31
Comment on RRfI & on Evaluative Assessment thereof	32
National Roads Project Office (N6 Project Team) & TII Observation — September 2023	32
Mr Foran's Observation – October 2023	33
NTA Observation — October 2023	33
Glenveagh's Appeal & Technical Note — December 2023	34
Mr Foran's Observations — January 2024	35
Inspector's Report – March 2024	35
Inspector's Planning & EIA Assessments of Traffic Impact	37
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS	38
MR GORMAN IS AN EXPERT WITNESS — MR FORAN IS NOT	38
IRRATIONALITY, REGARD, MERITS & MR FORAN'S ESSENTIAL CASE	42
Irrationality, Regard, Merits & Disguises	42
Essence of Mr Foran's Case – Cycle Lanes Inadequate	43
Mr Gorman's Response	47
Inexpert Opinions & Non-Mandatory Guidance – No Legal Defect	49
COMMENT ON MR FORAN'S OBSERVATIONS & LENS OF MATERIAL BEFORE COMMISSION	49
AMENDED STATEMENT OF GROUNDS – LAYOUT & PARTICULARS	52
GROUND 1 — REGARD TO SPATIAL PLANNING & NATIONAL ROADS GUIDELINES	54
G1 Particulars of Ground 1	54
G1 Mr Foran's Position	55
G1 ACP's Position	55
G1 Glenveagh's Position	57
G1: Decision – Pleadings, Prematurity & Regard	59
Dressed up Challenge to Merits	63
G1: Decision – Reasons, Discretion & Overall decision	64
GROUND 2: INCONSISTENCY WITH CLIMATE ACTS & CLIMATE ACTION PLANS	65
Climate Acts & Climate Action Plans	65
G2: Mr Foran's Position	66
G2: ACP's Position	67
G2: Glenveagh's Position	68
G2: Decision	68
Initial Observations	68
Pleadings & Recitation by Commission of Regard to CAP	69
Practicability of Consistency — Coolglass & Mount Salus	70
Conclusion	74

INTRODUCTION 2

1 The Notice Party, (“Glenveagh”) applied to Galway City Council (“the Council”) on 10 January 2023 for planning permission for the “Proposed Development” the subject matter of these proceedings – known as the Knocknacarra District LRD. 3 As later granted permission, it is an LRD of 227 apartments in 7 blocks, commercial units, community, tenant amenity and childcare facilities and associated car parking, bike parking, road works and road realignments at Gort Na Bro, Rahoon, Galway – the “Site”.

2 Mr Foran made a submission to the Council on 13 February 2023. Transport Infrastructure Ireland 4 (“TII”) made a submission on 15 February 2023. The Council made a request for further information (“RfI”) on 3 March 2023, and Glenveagh replied (“RRfI”) on 28 August 2023. TII made a further submission on 29 September 2023. Mr Foran made a second submission on 5 October 2023. The National Transport Authority (“NTA”) made a submission on 26 October 2023.

3 On 15 November 2023, the Council refused Glenveagh's application for four reasons. Reason 1 5 was that asserted by TII — variance with the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines 6 as to control of development on/affecting national roads, as it, or the precedent which permission for it would set, would adversely affect the operation and safety of the national road network. The Council asserted that standards were not in accordance with those set in the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines and boundary treatments. 7

4 Glenveagh appealed that refusal to An Coimisiún Pleanála (“the Commission”) on 12 December 2023. Mr Foran made a submission to the Commission on 17 January 2024. The Commission's Inspector, by report dated 14 March 2024, recommended that permission be granted. The Commission on 4 April 2024 decided, reversing the Council's refusal, to grant permission generally in accordance with its Inspector's recommendation and it did so by Order 8 (“the Impugned Decision”) dated 10 April 2024.

5 Mr Foran, a litigant in person, seeks in these proceedings to have the Impugned Decision quashed.

6 Mr Foran is a resident of Rahoon in Galway City and says he will be personally affected by the design of the road works included in the Proposed Development. He says that, of preference, he travels by pedal cycle, 9 by foot, or by public transport and daily uses the roads that will be impacted by the Proposed Development. In particular, he uses the #405 bus to get to and from work. The western terminus of the #405 will be within the Proposed Development and its eastern terminus is at Mr Foran's place of work in Ballybrit. He also volunteers as a marshal on a “cycling school bus” initiative escorting children cycling to the primary school just north of the Site. More generally, Mr Foran has for many years been an advocate of cycling as a form of sustainable transport – a form of the “Active Travel” which, all in the case agree, is an established aim of planning policy. As noted above, Mr Foran made observations in the planning process to both Galway City Council and the Commission, expressing concern as to the road designs associated with the Proposed Development.

7 By way of general observation, I formed the strong impression (I think all did 10) that Mr Foran was entirely genuine, convinced and civic-minded in his disagreement with the Impugned Decision on its merits as to provision for cyclists. But he never got mentally to grips with the

• • fact that the law makes the Commission, not the courts, the final decision-maker in planning appeals. The only exception is where the Commission's decision is in some way illegal. Judicial review is important but exceptional – it is not simply, or as a matter of routine, the next stage in a planning process.

• • immutable rule that decisions impugned in judicial review can be quashed only for illegality.

• • distinction, in judicial review of an impugned decision, between disagreement with it on its merits and...