Brophy & anor -v- An Bord Pleanala [2015] IEHC 433 (03 July 2015)

Brophy & anor -v- An Bord Pleanala [2015] IEHC 433 (03 July 2015)

The Board was entitled to apply the strict 'need' test in Policy H32 of the Development Plan, which prevails over the broader ministerial guidelines; there was no error of law or irrationality in the Board's decision to refuse planning permission.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] IEHC 433
Parties
Applicant: Gillian Brophy; Applicant: David Nulty; Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Notice Party: South Dublin County Council
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
03 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Refusal
Outcome
Application for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Development Plans, Application of Ministerial Guidelines, Judicial Review of Planning Decisions, Material Contravention of Development Plan
Planning Law Administrative Law Interpretation of Development Plans Application of Ministerial Guidelines Judicial Review of Planning Decisions Material Contravention of Development Plan

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gillian Brophy

Applicant

David Nulty

Applicant

An Bord Pleanála

Respondent

South Dublin County Council

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Application to Quash Planning Refusal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether An Bord Pleanála erred in law in interpreting Policy H32 of the Development Plan
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to have proper regard to the 2005 Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines
  3. 3 Whether the Board's decision was unreasonable or irrational

Ratio Decidendi

The Board was entitled to apply the strict 'need' test in Policy H32 of the Development Plan, which prevails over the broader ministerial guidelines; there was no error of law or irrationality in the Board's decision to refuse planning permission.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application to quash the Board's decision is refused