Mulloy v An Bord Pleanala & ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 86 (12 March 2024)

Mulloy v An Bord Pleanala & ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 86 (12 March 2024)

The Board's decision to grant permission was valid as the Material Contravention Statement, though confused, sufficiently alerted the public to the issue of material contravention as to height, and the Board properly identified and justified the contravention under s.37(2)(b) PDA 2000 and national policy guidelines. The errors in the MCS did not invalidate the permission as the Board's reasoning and Inspector's report correctly applied the statutory framework.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 86
Parties
Applicant: Ciaran Mulloy; First Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Second Respondent: Ireland and the Attorney General; Third Respondent: Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council; Notice Party: Knockrabo Investments DAC
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused; permission upheld.
Legal Topics
Material Contravention, Building Height, Strategic Housing Development, Local Area Plan, Development Plan, Public Participation, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Environmental Law Administrative Law Material Contravention Building Height Strategic Housing Development Local Area Plan Development Plan +2 more

Case Brief

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ciaran Mulloy

Applicant

An Bord Pleanála

First Respondent

Ireland and the Attorney General

Second Respondent

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council

Third Respondent

Knockrabo Investments DAC

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the grant of planning permission for the Knockrabo development was in material contravention of the Development Plan and Goatstown Local Area Plan as to building height
  2. 2 Whether the Material Contravention Statement (MCS) complied with statutory requirements under s.8(1)(a)(iv)(II) of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016
  3. 3 Whether the Board properly identified and justified material contravention under s.9(6) of the 2016 Act and s.37(2)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000

Ratio Decidendi

The Board's decision to grant permission was valid as the Material Contravention Statement, though confused, sufficiently alerted the public to the issue of material contravention as to height, and the Board properly identified and justified the contravention under s.37(2)(b) PDA 2000 and national policy guidelines. The errors in the MCS did not invalidate the permission as the Board's reasoning and Inspector's report correctly applied the statutory framework.

Court Disposition

Application refused; permission upheld.

Orders

  • The application to quash the planning permission is refused.
  • The grant of planning permission by An Bord Pleanála is upheld.