Reilly and Others v an Coimisiún Pleanála

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 28 November 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 659
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [H.JR.2024.0000781]

Between

John Reilly, Derek Lynch, Conor Coyle, Kevin Fitzsimons and Villa Park and Blackhorse Community Group

Applicants

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála

Respondent

and

Lark Finance Limited and SM Blackhorse Limited

Notice Parties

[2025] IEHC 659

[H.JR.2024.0000781]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Judicial review – Planning permission – Material contravention – Applicants seeking an order quashing an order granting planning permission – Whether the proposed development materially contravened the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028

Facts: The applicants, Mr Reilly, Mr Lynch, Mr Coyle, Mr Fitzsimons and Villa Park and Blackhorse Community Group, applied to the High Court seeking an order of certiorari quashing the order of An Bord Pleanala dated 25 April 2024, to grant planning permission to the notice parties, Lark Finance Ltd and SM Blackhorse Ltd, in respect of a development comprising 31 residential units at 353 and 363 Blackhorse Avenue, Dublin 7. The core grounds of challenge were as follows: core ground 2 - allegedly defective application documents; core ground 4 - failure to exercise statutory powers; and core ground 5 - material contravention. Core grounds 1, 3 and 6 were not maintained.

Held by Humphreys J that: (i) an applicant does not, in general, have standing to argue for rights of third parties or to claim denial of rights that she was not in fact denied; (ii) the applicants were not entitled to speculatively argue for the rights of the public generally in respect of a relatively technical alleged breach of public participation rights and the first applicant did not have standing to argue for not having had an opportunity to comment on the Dublin City Development Plan 2022 when he did have such an opportunity; (iii) law generally and the planning application system in particular must be workable; (iv) an alleged duty to revert back to applicants following the adoption of new documents during the process was unworkable and inapplicable on the facts; (v) an applicant must discharge the onus of proof to establish all facts necessary for relief; (vi) the applicants had not made out relevant elements of sub-grounds 8 and 9 or demonstrated how the material provided fell short of the material envisaged by Table 15-1 other than merely by reference to the titles of the documents, the applicants had not demonstrated that any issue about a duty to activate the relevant statutory powers to consult process participants properly arose on the facts, and the applicants had not established facts capable of demonstrating either contravention of the development plan or materiality of such contravention; (vii) an error in initial application documentation is not to be regarded as fatal irrespective of significance and irrespective of the necessary evolution and classification of a project in the process itself; (viii) even if there were any errors in the application documentation, they were not significant and were remedied in the process as a whole; (ix) judicial review is a discretionary remedy; and (x) discretion militated against relief even assuming error, given the lack of prejudice to the applicants, the minor nature of any arguable problems and the lack of any submissions about the issues.

Humphreys J dismissed the proceedings.

Proceedings dismissed.

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Friday the 28th day of November 2025

1 . Following the grant of a permission for a housing project that was considered acceptable by the city council, the inspector, and the commission itself, the applicants have combed microscopically through hundreds of pages of material to come up with a host of technicalities which they present as grounds for legal invalidity in a situation where their merits-based objections were rejected. The developer called the first named applicant's appeal to the commission “frivolous” in its response document (section 4.2), by reason of the scattergun nature of the complaints made. The issue here is whether relief by way of judicial review properly arises on such a basis.

Geographical context

2 . The proposed development ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/315001) will consist of a residential development of 31 residential units comprising of one four-storey apartment block (ranging from three to four storeys) (11 one-bedroom units and 20 two-bedroom units) with balconies/terraces to the south east elevation, two communal roof terraces located at fourth floor level, one ESB substation and switch room, waste storage area, entrance lobbies, two bicycle parking rooms (each with 28 spaces, providing 56 spaces in total), landscaping, public lighting, boundary treatment, 25 surface-level car parking spaces, ten surface-level bicycle parking spaces, new vehicular access from Villa Park Road, pedestrian access from Villa Park Road and Blackhorse Avenue, playground and all associated site development and engineering works necessary to facilitate the proposed development. The proposed development would also consist of the demolition of the two existing single-storey detached dwellings and associated outbuildings and sheds all at 353 and 363 Blackhorse Avenue, Dublin, which is bound by Blackhorse Avenue to the south and Villa Park to the west (approximately at https://maps.app.goo.gl/jNEaL2HmHA7s8rfr8).

Facts

3 . A legally separate but functionally very similar application on the same site was previously granted in 2021 and then quashed on judicial review [ 2021 0351 JR] on 6 June 2024. Following remittal to the commission, a new permission was granted recently, currently the subject of a separate judicial review [ 2025 1402 JR].

4 . The notice party developers submitted the present application to the planning authority on 28 February 2022.

5 . A further information request (RFI) was made by the planning authority on 16 June 2022.

6 . This was responded to by the developers on 9 September 2022.

7 . The planning authority determined the developers' planning application by reference to the Dublin City Development Plan 2016–2022 on 6 October 2022, and made a decision granting permission subject to a number of conditions.

8 . A first-party appeal was submitted on the 1 November 2022 by Mr Reilly, the first named applicant on behalf of the Villa Park and Blackhorse Avenue community group (the fifth named applicant). The appeal included a list of “names and addresses of those who have requested to be acknowledged as concurring with this appeal”, including the second, third and fourth named applicants.

9 . So only one of the applicants in the judicial review was an appellant – it was either the first named applicant, or the fifth named applicant with the first named applicant being an agent only. The concept of appealing on behalf of others isn't a legally recognised concept – each individual appellant has to pay a fee to make an appeal.

10 . The council and the notice parties submitted responses to the appeal. The developers' appeal response noted (at pp. 24–25) that “[i]t is acknowledged that the application was submitted to and assessed by the Planning Authority under the Dublin City Development Plan 2016–2022, as that was the local Development Plan in effect at the time of the application and decision. However, as of December 2022, the new Dublin City Development Plan 2022–2028 will come into effect. Downey can confirm that the land use zoning pertaining to the site has not changed and is still zoned Objective Z1 with the proposed development being permitted in principle. The overall development is consistent with the new Development Plan and the relevant sections of the Development Plan have been referenced in section 4 of this report, in response to the third-party appeal”.

11 . No third-party observations were received by the commission.

12 . The Dublin City Development Plan 2022–2028 (the CDP 2022–2028) was adopted at a special council meeting on 2 November 2022.

13 . By letter dated 2 December 2022, the commission invited the first named applicant and the council to make submissions in relation to the developers' response to the appeal.

14 . On 14 December 2022, the CDP 2022–2028 came into effect.

15 . The first named applicant made a submission on behalf of the Blackhorse Avenue Villa Park Road Residents Group, dated 16 December 2022. The council did not make a further submission.

16 . The commission's inspector recommended a grant of permission subject to 20 conditions in a 51-page report dated 28 February 2024.

17 . On 25 April 2024, the commission granted permission for the demolition of two houses, construction of an apartment block consisting of 31 apartments and all associated site works subject to 19 conditions.

Procedural history

18 . The proceedings were issued on 18 June 2024.

19 . The matter was listed in the P&E List for the first time on 8 July 2024.

20 . Leave was granted on 29 July 2024 by Holland J.

21 . The notice of motion and amended statement of grounds were issued on 15 August 2024.

22 . The matter was listed for mention on 25 November 2024, and adjourned to the January 2025 List to Fix Dates.

23 . The respondent filed its statement of opposition and affidavit on 7 May 2025.

24 . The developers filed their statement of opposition on 10 July 2025.

25 . The applicants filed their legal submissions on 7 October 2025.

26 . The matter was listed for callover on 13 October 2025. The statement of case was outstanding. A late affidavit was allowed without prejudice (this is the affidavit of the third named applicant which is objected to).

27 . The respondent filed its legal submissions on 30 October 2025.

28 . The matter was again listed for callover on 3 November 2025.

29 . The developers filed their legal submissions on 4 November 2025.

30 . The matter was heard on 7 November 2025. Judgment was reserved at the end of that hearing. I would like to record my thanks to all of...