The Supreme Court has upheld a decision to quash planning permission for a large-scale housing development in Drumcondra, Dublin. The ruling found that An Bord Pleanála failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision to approve the 1,592-apartment project and did not take relevant considerations into account. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe, emphasises the importance of thorough analysis and transparency in planning decisions.
On 4 November 2021, An Bord Pleanála granted planning permission to CWTC Multi Family ICAV for a strategic housing development at Holy Cross College in Drumcondra. The project included 1,592 build-to-rent apartments and was submitted under the strategic housing development (SHD) procedure as outlined in the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016.
Several issues arose regarding the development, including:
– Potential demolition of parts of five protected structures.
– Impact on the “Red House” and other heritage sites.
– Height restrictions breaches as per the Dublin City Development Plan 2016–2022.
– Risks to mature trees and green areas due to a proposed basement structure.
The grant of permission was challenged in the High Court. Mr Justice Richard Humphreys identified two main objections:
1. The impact on protected structures and material contravention of the development plan.
2. Issues related to the proposed basement structure and its contravention of the development plan.
The High Court found that An Bord Pleanála’s inspector did not adequately consider Section 57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which restricts the demolition of protected structures except in exceptional circumstances. Furthermore, the inspector failed to properly engage with objections from Dublin City Council regarding the basement structure. Consequently, the High Court quashed the Board’s decision and denied leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court later granted leave to appeal on specific legal points.
Mr Justice Seamus Woulfe delivered the Supreme Court’s judgment, addressing several key issues:
1. Interpretation of ‘Exceptional Circumstances’:
The court examined whether ‘exceptional circumstances’ under Section 57(10)(b) of the 2000 Act applied to the demolition of any part of a protected structure or the entire structure. The court concluded that the term ‘structure’ in this context refers to the entire structure, not just parts of it. Therefore, the requirement for exceptional circumstances was not triggered by the proposed partial demolition.
2. Material Contravention of the Development Plan:
The court found that the Board failed to determine whether the proposed development would materially contravene Dublin City Council’s policy CHC2, which aims to protect the character of heritage sites. The inspector’s conclusion that the proposed Block D1 could coexist with existing protected structures did not constitute an adequate assessment of compliance with policy CHC2.
3. Basement Development:
The Supreme Court noted that the development plan discourages significant basement development adjacent to protected structures. The inspector did not determine whether the proposed basement would contravene this policy, leading to another failure in considering relevant provisions.
4. Duty to Give Reasons:
The court emphasised the importance of providing clear and adequate reasons for planning decisions. The Supreme Court found that An Bord Pleanála did not adequately explain its decision to permit the construction of Block D1, nor did it address the council’s concerns about landscape and tree loss.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to quash An Bord Pleanála’s grant of planning permission for the 1,592-apartment development in Drumcondra. The ruling highlights the necessity for detailed analysis and transparency in planning decisions, particularly when dealing with protected structures and significant urban developments.
