Watchhouse Cross Shopping Centre Ltd and Another v an Coimisiún Pleanála and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Humphreys J.
• Judgment Date: 03 October 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IEHC 520
• Docket Number: [H.JR.2024.0000419]

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

Between

Watchhouse Cross Shopping Centre Limited and Sataner Limited

Applicants

and

An Coimisiún Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

and

Aldi Stores (Ireland) Limited

Notice Party

[2025] IEHC 520

[H.JR.2024.0000419]

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

Judicial review – Planning permission – Proposed development – Applicants seeking an order of certiorari quashing an order of the first respondent granting planning permission to the notice party – Whether the first respondent’s decision contained material errors of fact and law

Facts: The applicants, Watchhouse Cross Shopping Centre Ltd and Sataner Ltd, applied to the High Court seeking an order of certiorari by way of application for judicial review quashing the order of the first respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála (the Board), granting planning permission to the notice party, Aldi Stores (Ireland) Ltd, for proposed development of a discount food store and associated works at New Road, Moyross, Co. Limerick of 30 January 2024. The applicants argued that the Board’s decision was invalid because the proposed development materially contravened ‘LCC06’ of the Limerick City and County Council: Retail Strategy for Limerick-Shannon Metropolitan Area and County Limerick 2022-2028 and/or failed to properly interpret, apply and have regard to the Retail Planning Guidelines for Planning Authorities issued by the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government in April 2012, and/or the Board’s conclusions in making and reaching its decision contained material errors of fact and law and/or the Board failed to provide any or any adequate reasons for its decision.

Held by Humphreys J that: (i) it is settled law that an applicant is not permitted to advance a ius tertii in relation to property rights; (ii) applying such law to the facts, the complaint of an invalid application having regard to the rights of a third party failed; (iii) it is settled law that legalistic over-parsing and hunting for technicalities is generally not a proper basis for certiorari; (iv) applying such law to the facts, the fact that Limerick City and County Council failed to notify statutory consultees was not a basis for certiorari where the Board took all available steps to rectify that; (v) it is settled law, applying Sherwin v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IESC 13, that in relation to issues that fall to be addressed regarding material contravention of a provision of a development plan, the starting point is that the decision-taker is required to address the text of the relevant provision; (vi) applying such law to the facts, the Board failed to do that; (vii) it is settled law that evidence in judicial review on matters that should have been put before the decision-taker is generally not permitted, and that exceptions include proof of harmless error but that in such a situation the onus is on the opposing parties, bearing in mind that discharge of such onus in the event of a conflict of evidence requires cross-examination; (viii) applying such law to the facts, the developer’s replying evidence on substantive matters was not generally admissible, and did not prove harmless error in the absence of cross-examination, reinforced by lack of explanation of matters within its peculiar knowledge, but more fundamentally was not an answer to the failure by the Board to engage with the relevant objective of the development plan.

Humphreys J ordered that there be an order of certiorari.

Application granted.

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Friday the 3 ^rd day of October 2025

1 . An express objective of the development plan here, LCC06, envisaged that new retail development should be concentrated in existing town, district and village centres, if practicable and viable. The relevant district centre is an existing shopping centre which is naturally anxious to retain its long-term viability. The developer is a discount grocery store that preferred (and seems generally to prefer) a stand-alone development. The board sided with the developer, but didn't either refer to objective LCC06, or expressly address the test specified within that objective. The question here is whether this constituted a legal error in the approach to material contravention.

Geographical context

2 . The project ( https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/314911) involves the construction of a single-storey discount food store (to include off-licence use) and all associated site works located on lands at New Road/Knockalisheen Road, Ballynanty More, Moyross, which is to the north of Limerick City. The site is approximately at: https://maps.app.goo.gl/usZkQHiGwQD7RMW66.

3 . The applicants operate the Watchhouse Cross Shopping Centre (WCSC) which is nearby, a view of which is at https://maps.app.goo.gl/rZHy3Kd7YPRF9TFt9.

4 . The general area is described as follows in the development plan:

“3.4.6.5 Moyross

Moyross lies to the north-west of Limerick City. The Moyross Regeneration Area covers approximately 200ha. (494 acres) and spans almost 2 kilometres from west to east and 1.8 kilometres north to south. Moyross presents the following key challenges:

• Poor connectivity and accessibility with adjacent neighbourhoods, which has resulted in Moyross becoming physically, economically and socially isolated;

• Over-provision of underutilised public open space;

• Several under-used and vacant infill housing sites, which currently detract from the overall appearance of the estate;

• Due to the demolition of some blocks to date, the layout of the houses provide exposed boundaries which provide little in the way of natural surveillance — undermining the safety and security of the area;

• To the east of Moyross is a significant area of wetland, known as Knocknalisheen Marsh, which is prone to flooding;

• A key challenge in Moyross is to ensure that any development, proposed as part of the LRFIP, does not have a negative impact on the water quality and habitats within Moyross or downstream of the area.”

Facts

5 . WCSC opened in the early 2000s in Moyross, as noted above, a somewhat deprived area of Limerick. Two previous anchor tenants quit the centre over the years, with Tesco, previously Iceland, currently occupying that role.

6 . An application for planning permission was lodged to the planning authority on 30 November 2021 on behalf of the notice party. The application form indicated that environmental impact assessment (EIA) was not required but was accompanied by a Natura impact statement (NIS).

7 . The applicants made submissions on the planning application on 10 January 2022.

8 . A request for further information (RFI) was made by the council on 2 February 2022.

9 . The notice party responded to the RFI on 2 September 2022.

10 . The council granted permission subject to 18 conditions on 28 September 2022.

11 . The applicants appealed the decision to the commission on 24 October 2022.

12 . The notice party made observations on the appeals on 23 November 2022.

13 . The commission circulated the notice party's observations requesting submissions pursuant to s. 131 of the 2000 Act.

14 . The applicants made further comments in response to the commission's s. 131 request on 12 December 2022.

15 . The inspector's report issued on 19 December 2023, following a site visit on 6 December 2023.

16 . The commission granted permission subject to 19 conditions on 30 January 2024.

Procedural history

17 . The applicants filed their statement of grounds and grounding affidavit on 22 March 2024.

18 . The ex parte docket was filed on 25 March 2024, and the matter was first listed for mention during a vacation sitting on the same date.

19 . On 13 May 2024, leave was granted and the matter was adjourned to 17 June 2024.

20 . The originating notice of motion was issued on 17 May 2024.

21 . On 17 June 2024, the matter was adjourned to the List to Fix Dates, which was held on 21 October 2024, at which time a hearing date was fixed.

22 . On 3 March 2025, the State indicated that it wasn't seeking modularisation and indeed nobody sought that.

23 . The State respondents filed their statement of opposition on 11 April 2025.

24 . The commission filed its opposition papers on 29 May 2025.

25 . The notice party filed a statement of opposition on 3 June 2025.

26 . On 26 May 2025, revised directions were agreed.

27 . On 18 June 2025, the commission substituted for the board by operation of law.

28 . The matter was listed for callover on 30 June 2025, at which time I directed that the parties' written submissions could exceed the usual word limit.

29 . The applicants filed written submissions on 30 June 2025.

30 . The State filed its written submissions on 7 July 2025.

31 . The commission and the notice party both filed written submissions on 8 July 2025.

32 . The matter was heard on 10 and 11 July 2025. Judgment was reserved at the end of that hearing. I would like to record my thanks to all of the lawyers involved for their unfailingly courteous, professional and helpful assistance. As I have previously sought to make clear, insofar as any points advanced are not being accepted in this or any other given judgment, that is solely to do with the inherent merits of such points and is no reflection on those instructed to convey such points, a distinction that most certainly should be, and I believe generally is in fact, self-evident to all concerned.

33 . On 11 September 2025, a draft of the present judgment was sent to the parties to give an opportunity to identify any errors. The rules of engagement in such a situation are that the draft is without prejudice to the right of the court ultimately to issue a judgment in whatever form or with whatever content it considers appropriate. Any comments must be emailed to the relevant judicial assistant and uploaded to ShareFile in writing within...