Leech & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 599 (12 November 2024)

Leech & Anor v An Bord Pleanala & Ors (Approved) [2024] IEHC 599 (12 November 2024)

The court held that the Z5 zoning permits mixed use including residential, so the Board had jurisdiction to accept and determine the SHD application. The court found that the applicants' pleadings regarding the cone of vision and material contravention were sufficiently particularised to put the respondents on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] IEHC 599
Parties
Applicant: Paul Leech; Applicant: Frank McDonald; Respondent: An Bord Pleanála; Respondent: Ireland; Respondent: The Attorney General; Notice Party: HPREF HSQ Investments
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
12 November 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Strategic Housing Development, Material Contravention, Development Plan Interpretation, Protected Structures, Visual Amenity, Judicial Review Pleading Standards
Planning and Environmental Law Administrative Law Strategic Housing Development Material Contravention Development Plan Interpretation Protected Structures Visual Amenity Judicial Review Pleading Standards

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Leech

Applicant

Frank McDonald

Applicant

An Bord Pleanála

Respondent

Ireland

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

HPREF HSQ Investments

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether An Bord Pleanála erred in law in granting permission for a strategic housing development on Z5 zoned lands
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to address material contravention regarding the cone of vision as required by law
  3. 3 Whether the pleadings regarding the cone of vision were sufficiently particularised to ground relief

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Z5 zoning permits mixed use including residential, so the Board had jurisdiction to accept and determine the SHD application. The court found that the applicants' pleadings regarding the cone of vision and material contravention were sufficiently particularised to put the respondents on notice. However, the court determined that the Board did not err in law in its interpretation and application of the development plan regarding the cone of vision. The Board's decision was not invalidated by any failure to address a material contravention, as the relevant provisions were considered and the statutory requirements were met. Accordingly, the grounds for certiorari and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review refused
  • No order of certiorari or declarations granted