Wendy Jennings and Adrian O'Connor v an Bord Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General

JurisdictionIreland
JudgeMr Justice David Holland
Judgment Date17 February 2023
Neutral Citation[2023] IEHC 14
CourtHigh Court
Docket Number2021/750 JR

In the matter of Sections 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and in the matter of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016

Between
Wendy Jennings and Adrian O'Connor
Applicants
and
An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and The Attorney General
Respondents

and

Colbeam Limited
Notice Party

2023 IEHC 14

2021/750 JR

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

JUDGMENT OF Mr Justice David Holland DELIVERED 17 February 2023.

Contents

INTRODUCTION

7

Figure 1: Site Location Map

9

Figures 2A & 2B: Aerial Views of Site & Context

10

Figure 3A: General Impression #1 of Proposed Development viewed from the south-west

11

Figure 3B: General Impression #2 of Proposed Development viewed from the east

12

Figure 4: General Impression #3 of Proposed Development — in Plan

12

The Applicants, The Grove & Roebuck House

12

The Proceedings — Course to Trial

13

Colbeam's Motion as to Applicants' Supporters

14

10 GROUNDS & Sub-grounds

14

THE IMPUGNED PERMISSION — and its intended Amendment

16

IRRATIONALITY — GENERAL LAW

19

Keegan (1986) — O'Keeffe (1993) — Meadows (January 2010) — Weston (July 2010)

19

NM — (2016) — AAA (2017)

26

Redrock — 2019

28

FIE — 2020

29

Other & Recent Cases

30

Burke — 2022

36

Comment

38

MATERIAL CONTRAVENTION — the GENERAL Law

38

Permission in Material Contravention — S.9(6) of the 2016 Act, S.37(2)(b) PDA 2000

39

Material Contravention — Standard of Review

39

Browne — 2021

41

Byrne v Wicklow — 1994

43

O'Reilly v O'Sullivan — 1996 & 1997

43

Wicklow Heritage Trust — 1998 (& cases considered therein)

45

Cork City Council v An Bord Pleanála 2006 & CIT v An Bord Pleanála 2013

50

CHASE — 2021 & Decisions Cited Therein

50

Redmond — 2020 & Ballyboden — 2022

51

Conclusion on Material Contravention, Standard of Review

54

THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, PLANNING HISTORY & REDMOND v AN BORD PLEANÁLA

57

Development Plan Map 1

57

Figure 5 — Extracts from Development Plan Map 1 & Legend

57

Development Plan Policies

58

Institutional Lands — §2.1.3.5 Policy RES5

58

Institutional Lands — §8.2.3.4(xi)

59

Open Space and Recreation — §8.2.8

60

The 2019 Permission & Redmond v An Bord Pleanála

60

POSITION IN THE SHD PROCESS OF THE SCHOOLS, THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND THE PLANNING AUTHORITY

62

Schools & Department of Education

62

Chief Executive's Report

63

GROUNDS 1 & 2 — OPEN SPACE, OPEN CHARACTER & INSTITUTIONAL DESIGNATION

64

Introduction

64

General Observations on Open Space, Open Character and Recreational Amenity of the Campus

65

Grounds 1 & 2(a) — Open Space Requirements

66

Ground 2(b) Open Character

72

Introduction & Pleadings

72

Redmond on the Site — Open Space and Open Character & the present Inspector's Report

74

Open Character — Conclusion

79

Ground 2(c) — Density

80

Density — Introduction

80

Density — Inspector's Report & Impugned Decision

81

Density — Grounds & Applicants' Submissions

83

Density — Opposition & Board's & Colbeam's' Submissions

84

Densities — Discussion and Decision

86

Ground 2(d) — Future Institutional Use

95

Future Institutional Use — Applicants' case

95

Future Institutional Use — Opposition

97

Chief Executive's Report & Department of Education

98

Future Institutional Use — Inspector's report

99

Future Institutional Use — Conclusion

100

GROUND 3 — PART V

100

Part V — Introduction

101

Part V — The Statutory Scheme

101

Ss.94, 95 & 96 PDA 2000

102

S.2 PDA 2000 — Definition of House

103

S.3 of the 2016 Act — Definition of Student Accommodation & Strategic Housing Development

103

Other Provisions

104

Legislation postdating the Impugned Permission

105

Part V — Residential Tenancies Acts 2004 to 2019 — definition of “dwelling”

107

Part V — Rebuilding Ireland — Action Plan for Housing and Homelessness — July 2016

108

The Planning Authority Chief Executive's report & the Inspector's Report & Impugned Decision

111

Part V — The Applicants' Pleadings & Written Submissions

113

Part V — The Board's & Colbeam's Pleading & Written Submissions

113

Part V — The Essential Issue

115

Part V — Discussion & Decision

115

GROUND 4 — SPPR3, HEIGHT GUIDELINES 2018 — Urban/Suburban

123

SPPR3 — Introduction

123

SPPR3 & SPPR4

123

SPPR3 — The Applicants' Pleadings & Submissions

125

SPPR3 — The Board's & Colbeam's Pleading & Submissions — SPPR3

126

SPPR3 — Discussion & Decision

127

“Urban”/“Suburban”

127

Guidelines & SPPRS

128

Height Guidelines 2018 & SPPR3

132

SPPR4

138

SPPR4 — Greenfield & Infill

139

SPPR3 & Height — Conclusion

141

GROUND 5 — SPPR3 & DAYLIGHT

143

Daylight — Introduction

143

Daylight — Grounds

144

Daylight — Opposition & Some Comment

145

Daylight — Height Guidelines 2018 & SPPR3 — “have regard to” or “comply”?

146

Daylight — Apartment Design Guidelines 2020

148

Daylighting Code & BRE Guide

149

Daylight — Atlantic Diamond & Walsh

153

Colbeam's Daylight/Sunlight Report & Analysis Thereof

160

Figure 6A — Floor Plan — communal Living/ Kitchen/ Dining room.

163

Figure 6B — elevation — communal Living/ Kitchen/Dining room.

163

Daylight — Dalton Affidavit sworn 13 January 2022

168

Daylight — Dalton Affidavit — Conclusion

170

Daylight — Inspector's report & Planning Authority Report

170

Different Daylight Standards for Students

172

Roebuck House & Permitted Building to its Rear

173

Daylight — Conclusion

174

GROUND 6 — PUBLIC TRANSPORT CAPACITY

176

GROUND 7 — STRATEGIC OR NATIONAL IMPORTANCE

178

Importance — Introduction

178

Importance — Clonres/Conway #2 & “Strategic”

180

Importance — Pembroke Road, Killegland, Foley & Redmond

184

Importance — Conclusion as to Validity of Reasons

185

Importance — Excision of the Invalid Reason

186

Importance — Conclusion — Ground 7

190

GROUND 8 — TREE REMOVALS

190

Trees — The Development Plan

191

Trees — Applicants' Pleadings & Submissions

192

Trees — The Board's & Colbeam's Pleading & Submissions

193

Moot

194

The Meaning of the Objective

194

Failure to demonstrate/interrogate necessity of tree removal

194

Tree Replacement

196

Trees — Zoning — Decision

196

Trees — Moot?

197

Arguments

197

Decision — Ground 8 as to Trees Not Moot

199

Decision — Commensurate Planting of Replacement Trees and Other Plant Material — Not Moot

201

Trees — Colbeam's Response to the Board's Pre-Application Consultation Opinion, Material Contravention Statement, Landscape Report & Arboricultural Report

201

Trees — The Chief Executive's View

207

Trees — The Inspector's Report

209

Trees — Decision on The Applicants' First Two Points

211

Trees — Decision on The Applicants' Third Point — Commensurate Planting

213

Implemented by Condition

215

Trees — Conclusion

216

GROUND 9 — MATERIAL CONTRAVENTION STATEMENT

216

GROUND 10 — EIA UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED AT PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION

222

EIA — Introduction & the Concept of Preliminary Examination

222

EIA — Colbeam's AA Screening Report, Ecological Impact Assessment Report & Environmental Report

223

EIA — The Inspector's Report, the Preliminary Examination Form & the Board's Decision

227

EIA — The Applicants' Pleadings & Submissions & Some Comment Thereon.

230

Grounds

230

Submissions

231

EIA — The Board's & Colbeam's Pleadings & Submissions

232

EIA — Discussion and Decision

233

Reasons — Nature & Scale of Development & Sub-Threshold Development

233

The Article 109 Point

234

Birds & Bats

234

EIA as to Bats & Birds — Moot/Discretion & Conclusion

244

CONCLUSIONS

245

INTRODUCTION
1

The Applicants, local residents who participated in the planning process before the First Respondent (“the Board”), seek to have quashed the Board's decision dated 3 June 2021, on foot of a planning permission application dated 12 February 2021, to grant planning permission (the “Impugned Permission” or “Impugned Decision”) to the Notice Party (“Colbeam”) for, essentially, construction of 698 bedspaces of student accommodation (“the Proposed Development”). 679 of the bedspaces are to be in 99 clusters of 5 to 8 bedspaces. The Planning Application form states 1 and the Board's Inspector notes 2 that “Each cluster includes a communal Living / Kitchen / Dining room” – though, as will be seen, that is controversial. The remaining 19 bedspaces are to be accessible studios. The student accommodation will comprise 8 blocks of up to 7 storeys, on a 2.12-hectare site at Our Lady's Grove, Goatstown Road, Dublin 14 (“the Site”). The Proposed Development will include public open space, communal open space, communal residential amenity spaces 3 and parking. 4 The Site lies about 5km south of Dublin city centre, 1km north-east of Dundrum, 850m south-west of University College Dublin, Belfield and about 180m west of Goatstown Road.

2

The Impugned Permission was granted pursuant to the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016 (“the 2016 Act”) as applicable to Strategic Housing Developments (“SHD”). The relevant development plan is the Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2016 – 2022 (the “Development Plan”).

3

The Board's Inspector (“the Inspector”), in her report dated 13 May 2021 (“the Inspector's Report”), describes the Site as being in a suburban area. It comprises essentially the southwestern quadrant of a larger (6.0264...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Reid v an Bord Pleanála and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 24 January 2024
    ...Ltd and Hickcastle Ltd v Meath County Council (No. 2) [2022] IEHC 631, [2022] 11 JIC 1803, Jennings & Anor v. An Bord Pleanála & Ors [2023] IEHC 14, [2023] 2 JIC 1711 (Holland J.), EPUK Investments Ltd. v. EPA [2023] IEHC 138, [2023] 3 JIC 2203 (Holland J.), Egan v. Egan [2023] IEHC 434, [2......
  • Stapleton v an Bord Pleanála and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 13 February 2024
    ...April 2022). 19 Killegland Estates v Meath County Council & Giltinane [2022] IEHC 393. 20 Jennings & O'Connor v An Bord Pleanála & Colbeam 2023 IEHC 14 [2023] IEHC 14, 21 Fernleigh v ABP & Ironborn [2023] IEHC 525. 22 This is a reference in substance to SPPR3 and s.28(1C) — hence the word “......
  • Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group v an Bord Pleanála and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 December 2023
    ...Tidy Towns Group v. An Bord Pleanála & Shannon Homes [2022] IEHC 7 §140 et seq. 141 Jennings & O'Connor v An Bord Pleanála & Colbeam [2023] IEHC 14 §65 et 142 Image 1. Site overview. 143 E.g. Ardstone's Design Statement p2 & p19. Ardstone's Landscape Architect's Report, Figure 2; Ardstone's......
  • Shadowmill Ltd v an Bord Pleanala
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 31 March 2023
    ...limit specified in that Schedule in respect of the relevant class of development. 85 Jennings & O'Connor v An Bord Pleanála & Colbeam [2023] IEHC 14 §614 – 617, 624 et seq, 648 et seq. It was considered in Waltham Abbey v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 587 & [2022] IESC 30 but not in any deta......
  • 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