Certification of Appeals and the ‘Exceptional Public Importance’ Threshold in Planning Judicial Reviews

Introduction

The decision in Stapleton v An Bord Pleanála & Ors (Approved) [2025] IEHC 178 marks a significant moment in Irish planning and administrative law. In this judicial review, Mr. Martin Stapleton challenged planning permission granted to Savona Ltd for the strategic housing development (SHD) at a site in Clontarf, Dublin 3. The core issues revolved around two foundational grounds: (i) a material contravention of the Development Plan regarding the quantum of communal open space and (ii) an error in the Board’s failure to consider whether further evidence – notably, Dublin Bus’s written confirmation on public transport adequacy – should have been sought. The High Court’s analysis, delivered by Mr. Justice Holland, was exhaustive and focused not only on the merits of the Board’s decision but also on the stringent procedural and doctrinal requirements governing certification of appeals under section 50A(7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court quashed the Board’s decision to grant planning permission on two independent grounds. Firstly, the Court found that the SHD was in material contravention of the Development Plan in respect of communal open space – a contravention compounded by the Board’s failure to invoke statutory procedures designed to assess such breaches. Secondly, the Court ruled that the Board erred by not considering whether it should have sought the crucial Dublin Bus correspondence regarding public transport adequacy, even though the evidence was later deemed insufficient to directly quash the decision on that account.

In addition, the judgment delved deeply into the principles governing the certification of appeals. The Court underscored the narrow scope in which an appeal may be certified, emphasizing the dual requirement that the point of law must be of exceptional public importance and that it be desirable in the public interest. These benchmarks, clearly articulated in the so-called “Glancré Principles,” were the lens through which all the posited questions of law were evaluated.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment is heavily anchored in a range of precedential decisions that shape the litigation landscape in planning appeals. Among the key authorities are:

Callaghan v An Bord Pleanála & Element Power [2015] IEHC 493 and Dublin Cycling Campaign CLG v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 146 – which informed the Court’s approach to handling posited errors on points of law by compelling the Court to assume the appellant’s case for purposes of certification.
The Glancré Principles (originating in Glancré Teoranta v An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250 and subsequently refined in cases such as Monkstown Road Residents' Association v ABP [2023] IEHC 9) – these principles mandate that appeals from judicial reviews be exceptional in nature. They stressed that certification should not be granted for issues that merely restate settled law or that do not disrupt the finality of High Court judgments.
Cases like O'Brien v An Bord Pleanála & Draper [2017] IEHC 773 and Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IEHC 231 – which demonstrate the careful balance between judicial review and respecting the procedural finality of planning decisions.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning was multi-layered. It started by articulating the default principle that High Court decisions in judicial reviews are final and unappealable unless an appeal is certified under the stringent requirements of s.50A(7) PDA 2000. To justify certification, the appellant must demonstrate that the point of law is not only important but “exceptional” and affects the public interest.

Central to the reasoning was the adoption of the Glancré Principles which serve as a roadmap for evaluating whether an error in law warrants the appellate scrutiny. Justice Holland stressed that:

The point of law must arise directly from the High Court’s decision rather than being a mere abstract issue.
The error must be determinative—you must show that an error, if corrected, would change the outcome of the case.
The practical “real world” consequences of permitting an appeal must be evident, ensuring that the issues certified are not trivial.

In the context of the present case, when considering the open space issue and the alleged failure to request further information on public transport adequacy, the Court scrutinized each question in light of these principles. Where the Board posited questions that were either too broad, abstract, or driven by factual disputes rather than pure points of law, the Court refused certification.

Impact on Future Cases and the Field of Planning Law

The decision has notable implications for future judicial reviews in planning and administrative law. First, it reinforces the principle that a certificate of appeal will only be granted when the issue transcends the facts of the case, achieving a threshold of exceptional public importance. This is significant for litigants seeking to challenge planning decisions since it signals that only points affecting general legal principles or widespread regulatory practices will merit appellate intervention.

Moreover, by affirming the necessity of rigor and precision in drafting points of law (as recommended by Clifford and mentioned throughout the judgment), the decision obliges future appellants to ensure that their submissions are narrowly tailored to issues with far‐reaching implications – rather than rehashing factual disagreements or errors in judgment rendered on a case‐by‐case basis.

Complex Concepts Simplified

One of the most complex aspects addressed is the concept of “exceptional public importance” within the context of certification of appeals. In simple terms, for an appeal to be certified:

The issue must be more than a minor or isolated error – it has to affect the public interest in a significant way.
The point of law must directly influence the outcome of the case; if correcting it would not result in a change of the case’s decision, certification is unlikely.
The error must be one that could potentially affect other similar cases in the future, thus creating uncertainty in the law.

Additionally, the judgment dealt extensively with what constitutes “open space” under a Development Plan. The Court clarified that while a development plan can provide definitions or descriptions (even allowing some degree of enclosure as in sheltered roof gardens), the fundamental attribute of open space is its openness to the elements. This serves as a clear directive on how future cases might approach similar disputes: the ordinary, common-sense interpretation must remain at the forefront.

Conclusion

The High Court’s decision in Stapleton v An Bord Pleanála & Ors delivers an unequivocal message regarding the certification of appeals in the context of judicial reviews of planning decisions. By upholding the rigorous criteria of exceptional public importance and desirability in the public interest, the Court has reasserted that only genuinely significant points of law that carry the potential for broad legal impact will justify appellate intervention.

The judgment not only reinforces the established Glancré Principles but also provides detailed guidance on the interpretation of key concepts such as “open space” in planning law. For practitioners, legislators, and courts alike, the decision emphasizes the need for precision in legal argumentation and cautions against rearguing settled matters or issues confined to factual disputes.

In summary, while the decision does not open the door to wide-ranging appellate review of planning decisions, it establishes a robust framework ensuring that only matters with significant and far-reaching legal consequences merit further appellate scrutiny. This reinforces the delicate balance between judicial oversight and respect for the finality and efficiency imperative in administrative planning decisions.

Commentary by Legal Expert – providing in-depth insights into the evolving jurisprudence on certification of appeals within the planning law context.