Garryduff Properties Ltd v an Coimisiún Pleanála and Anor

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr Justice David Holland
• Judgment Date: 16 February 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 78
• Docket Number: Record No: 2024/22JR

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

Between:

Garryduff Properties Limited

Applicant

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála

Respondent

and

Laois County Council

Notice Party

[2026] IEHC 78

Record No: 2024/22JR

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review – Planning permission – Planning and Development Act 2000 s. 137 – Applicant seeking certiorari quashing the respondent’s decision to refuse planning permission – Whether the impugned decision contravened s. 137 of the Planning and Development Act 2000

Facts: The applicant, Garryduff Properties Ltd (Garryduff), applied to the High Court seeking certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála (the Commission), by order dated 6 November 2023, to refuse it planning permission for 85 residential units on a residentially-zoned site at Kilminchy, Portlaoise, Co. Laois (the Impugned Decision). The refusal was grounded only on the Commission’s view that the proposed mix of housing types was inconsistent with a development plan objective and hence with proper planning and sustainable development. Garryduff’s core grounds were as follows: (1) contravention of s. 137 of the Planning and Development Act 2000; (2) failure to give reasons for not accepting the Inspector’s recommendation; and (3) reasons why the proposed development did not satisfy the Laois County Development Plan 2021-2027 Housing Strategy Objective HPO1.

Held by Holland J that inaction by the claimant (in McMonagail Stone v Ireland & An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 223 terms, passivity), lack of prejudice and proportionality of relief were factors relevant to the consideration of the exercise of the discretion to refuse relief, citing Reilly v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Lark Finance [2025] IEHC 659. Holland J held that, in the circumstances of this case, the underlying purpose of s. 137 of the 2000 Act - audi alteram partem - was not frustrated on the facts of this case; indeed, it was amply met and Garryduff suffered no relevant prejudice. Holland J held that the failure was Garryduff’s in failing to avail of its opportunity to be heard. In those circumstances, Holland J held that certiorari would be disproportionate to the breach of s. 137 which he had assumed for the sake of argument. Accordingly, Holland J refused to grant relief on core ground 1. Holland J was convinced by the Commission’s submission that the reasons for refusal in this case were obvious. The Commission submitted that HPO1 straightforwardly requires 35% of the units to cater for single and two-person households and only 11% do so; Garryduff itself provided the 11% figure to the Council. The Commission submitted that, like the numerically quantified objective at issue in Clane Community Council v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 467, HPO1 is “...simple, straightforward and mathematical, and doesn’t confer any planning judgement...”. The Commission submitted that Garryduff “can have no real doubt as to why it lost” - as to what the Commission’s reason was. Accordingly, Holland J rejected core ground 3 as to reasons for concluding that the Proposed Development did not satisfy HPO1. In Holland J’s view, the Commission’s given reason for rejecting its Inspector’s recommendation sufficed in law. Holland J rejected Garryduff’s assertion to the contrary.

Holland J dismissed the proceedings, having rejected all grounds.

Proceedings dismissed.

JUDGMENT OF Mr Justice David Holland, DELIVERED 16 FEBRUARY 2026

CONTENTS

JUDGMENT OF MR JUSTICE DAVID HOLLAND, DELIVERED 16 FEBRUARY 2026	1
INTRODUCTION & CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS	2
New Development Plan Takes Effect During Planning Application & Observations	4
General Observations	4
Particular Observations	7
From Council's Clarification Request of 27 January 2022	8
INSPECTOR'S REPORTS	8
IMPUGNED DECISION	9
PLEADINGS — AMENDED GROUNDS, GROUND 2 & SCOPE OF CASE AS ARGUED	10
GROUND 1 – CONTRAVENTION OF S.137 PDA 2000	12
S.137 PDA 2000	13
Garryduff's Position	13
Commission's Position	14
G1 – Discussion & Decision	15
Interpretation & Application of s.137	15
Fair Procedures	16
Discretionary Relief	18
LAW AS TO REASONS — S.34(10) PDA 2000 & CASELAW	18
GOCE (2024) on Significance of Non-Compliance with Development Plan	21
GROUND 3 — REASONS why PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DID NOT SATISFY OBJECTIVE HPO1	22
Garryduff's Position	22
Commission's Position	23
G3 — Decision	23
GROUND 2 — FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE INSPECTOR'S RECOMMENDATION	24
Given Reason & Initial Observations	24
What did the Inspector Recommend?	25
G3 – Further Discussion & Decision	28
REASONS FOR REFUSAL ILLUMINATORY OF PROSPECTS OF FUTURE PLANNING APPLICATION	29
CONCLUSION	30

INTRODUCTION & CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS 1

1 The Applicant (“Garryduff”) seeks certiorari quashing the decision of An Coimisiún Pleanála 2 (“the Commission”) by order 3 dated 6 November 2023 to refuse it planning permission for 85 residential units on a residentially-zoned site at Kilminchy, Portlaoise, Co. Laois (“the Impugned Decision”, “the Proposed Development” and “the Site”). The refusal was grounded only in the Commission's view that the proposed mix of housing types was inconsistent with a development plan objective and hence with proper planning and sustainable development.

2 I am grateful to all counsel for their helpful submissions and their focussed and practical approach to the case.

3 Garryduff applied to the Notice Party (“the Council”) on 29 July 2021 for permission for 85 three-bedroom houses. The Laois County Development Plan 2017–2023 (“the 2017 CDP”) was operative at that time. I have not seen it, but that is because the parties agree that it did not address housing mix – or at least did not do so in quantified terms, as did its successor, which applied when the Impugned Decision was made. The Council sought further information by request dated 22 September 2021 (“RfI”) – including as follows:

“7. Housing Mix

Following discussions with the Housing Department with regards to the mix of unit types, it is noted that the demand for 3 bedroom social housing units has been satisfied. There is currently a demand for one and two bedroom units. The applicant is requested to submit their comments and proposals in this regard.”

This request derived from social housing requirements for which Part V PDA 2000 provides and not from any other or general development plan content as to housing mix. However, I respectfully disagree with Garryduff's submission that the formulation of this request in Part V terms has implications for the decision of these proceedings. The significance of the RfI is simply that it drew attention to housing mix as an issue and, more importantly, prompted a reply in particular terms as to housing mix.

4 Garryduff's reply, dated 21 December 2021, to the RfI (“RRfI”) stated as to housing mix:

“The revised layout includes proposals for a block of duplex units consisting of 5 no. 1-bed apartments and 5 no. 2-bed apartments …The proposals outlined above means that over 11% of the proposed development will be dedicated to one and two-bedroom units.” 4

This increased the number of units proposed from 85 to 89. 10 of those 89 were 1—and 2-bedroom units. 5 As will be seen, the RRfI's primary significance now is Garryduff's assertion

that over 11% of the proposed units will be one—and two-bedroom units. I should say that by its use of the word “over” Garryduff does not assert an open-ended exceedance of 11%: it merely asserts a precise figure slightly exceeding 11%.

5 The Council's planner 6 considered the RRfI at “acceptable” as having “introduced a number of 1 and 2 bedroom apartments into the scheme.” On 27 January 2022, the Council sought further clarification from Garryduff – but not as to housing mix.

New Development Plan Takes Effect During Planning Application & Observations

6 The next significant occurrence, during the process before the Council, was that the Laois County Development Plan 2021–2027 (“the 2021 CDP”) took effect on 8 March 2022. By CDP Housing Strategy Objective HPO1 7 it provides that applications for residential development of 10 units or more should:

“Ensure that 35% … provides for single and two person households.”

General Observations

7 I should make some general observations at this point.

• First, HPO1 is in both strong (“ensure”) and quantified (“35%”) terms.

• Second, while Garryduff attempted in these proceedings to argue against a correlation between “1—and 2-bedroom units” and “single and two person households”, I respectfully reject that argument on an XJS 8 interpretation of HPO1 as if by an intelligent layperson — as opposed to a legalistic interpretation. The correlation may not be inevitably and invariably precise (no doubt a single person can, and some do, occupy 3-bedroom houses) but it is at least close in general terms and a layperson would regard the concepts as generally and broadly interchangeable.

• Third, it is necessary to consider the position of a planning permission applicant whose application is pending on the coming into effect of a new development plan and also to consider the relationship of a development plan to the reasons which may be given for a planning decision.

8 In that third regard, it is important first to recollect the purpose and status of a development plan. A development plan is an environmental contract by a planning authority with the community in its functional area “ embodying a promise by the council that it will regulate private development in a manner consistent with the objectives stated in the plan …” – McGarry. 9 It and its effectuation are “ answerable to public confidence”—as “ a representation in solemn form, binding on all...