Sherwin v An Bord Pleanala (Approved) [2024] IESC 13 (11 April 2024)

Sherwin v An Bord Pleanala (Approved) [2024] IESC 13 (11 April 2024)

The Supreme Court held that the requirement for 'exceptional circumstances' in s.57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 applies only to the demolition of the entire protected structure or something close to it, not to any part of a protected structure. The context of the Act and the structure of the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] IESC 13
Parties
Applicant/respondent: Fionuala Sherwin; Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Notice Party/appellant: CWTC Multi Family ICAV
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
11 April 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Planning Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court decision on s.57(10)(b) reversed; other findings on material contravention and reasons upheld.
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Planning and Development Act 2000 S.57(10), Material Contravention of Development Plan, Protected Structures, Standard of Judicial Review, Duty to Give Reasons
Planning Law Administrative Law Heritage Protection Interpretation of Planning and Development Act 2000 S.57(10) Material Contravention of Development Plan Protected Structures Standard of Judicial Review Duty to Give Reasons

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fionuala Sherwin

Applicant/respondent

An Bord Pleanála

Respondent

CWTC Multi Family ICAV

Notice Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Planning Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does s.57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 require 'exceptional circumstances' for demolition of any part of a protected structure, or only for total/substantial demolition?
  2. 2 Did the Board materially contravene the Dublin City Development Plan regarding protected structures and basements?
  3. 3 What is the standard of review for Board decisions on material contravention of development plans?

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the requirement for 'exceptional circumstances' in s.57(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 applies only to the demolition of the entire protected structure or something close to it, not to any part of a protected structure. The context of the Act and the structure of the relevant provisions require this interpretation. The Court also found that the Board failed to adequately address material contravention of the development plan regarding protected structures and the basement, and failed to give sufficient reasons regarding the impact on the Red House and other heritage concerns.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court decision on s.57(10)(b) reversed; other findings on material contravention and reasons upheld.

Orders

  • The interpretation of s.57(10)(b) is clarified: 'exceptional circumstances' required only for total or substantial demolition of a protected structure.
  • The Board's decision is quashed for failure to address material contravention of the development plan and failure to give adequate reasons regarding protected structures and the Red House.