Introduction

The case of Monkstown Road Residents' Association & Ors v An Bord Pleanala & Ors ([2023] IEHC 9) was adjudicated by the High Court of Ireland on January 19, 2023. The applicants, including the Monkstown Road Residents' Association (MRRA), James Barry, Bairbre Stewart, and Christopher Craig, challenged the decision of An Bord Pleanála (the Planning Board) to grant planning permission for a Strategic Housing Development (SHD) by Lulani Dalguise Limited on a site encompassing Dalguise House, a protected structure located on Monkstown Road, Blackrock, County Dublin.

The key issues revolved around the Board's reliance on Specific Planning Policy Requirement 1 (SPPR1) of the Height Guidelines, the adequacy of reasons provided for Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening decisions, and whether points of law of exceptional public importance were present to warrant an appeal.

Summary of the Judgment

Mr. Justice Holland quashed An Bord Pleanála's decision to grant planning permission based on three main grounds:

• Erroneous reliance on SPPR1 of the Height Guidelines.
• Inadequate reasoning provided for the EIA Screening decision regarding the insignificance of effects on cultural heritage.
• Erroneous findings related to the adequacy of Lulani's EIA Screening Report in describing the environmental effects of the proposed development.

The Board sought a certificate to appeal the judgment, asserting that the points of law raised were of exceptional public importance and in the public interest. However, the High Court refused to certify the appeal, determining that the Board's points did not meet the stringent criteria required for certification.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment invoked several precedents to strengthen its decision, including:

• Clonres clg v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 303: Established that SPPR1 cannot be used as a basis for granting permissions that materially contravene development plans.
• O'Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 I.R. 39: Defined the standard of judicial review in terms of rationality and unreasonableness.
• Glancré Teoranta v An Bord Pleanála and Mayo County Council [2006] IEHC 250: Provided principles for certifying points of law for appeal, emphasizing exceptional public importance.
• Wednesbury standards: Referenced for defining the threshold of irrationality in judicial reviews.

These precedents collectively underscored the necessity for planning authorities to adhere strictly to established planning policies and provided a framework for assessing the adequacy of EIA screenings and the grounds for judicial review.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on the following points:

• Misapplication of SPPR1: The Board erroneously applied SPPR1 of the Height Guidelines to justify a material contravention of the Development Plan, contrary to the established legal framework.
• Adequacy of Reasons in EIA Screening: The Board failed to provide sufficient reasons to substantiate its finding that the proposed development would not significantly affect the cultural heritage of Dalguise House, a protected structure.
• Certification of Appeal: The Board's attempt to certify an appeal was scrutinized against the legal standards for certification. The court found that the points raised by the Board did not rise to the level of exceptional public importance and did not sufficiently emerge from the judgment to warrant certification.

The judgment emphasized the High Court's role in ensuring planning decisions comply with legislative requirements and that environmental assessments are thorough and reasoned. It also highlighted the stringent criteria for certifying appeals, ensuring that only points of law with significant public impact are entertained.

Impact

This judgment has several implications for future cases and the broader planning and environmental assessment landscape in Ireland:

• Strict Adherence to SPPRs: Planning authorities must meticulously apply Specific Planning Policy Requirements without overstepping into areas of material contravention of development plans.
• Enhanced Scrutiny of EIA Screenings: Decisions regarding the significance of environmental impacts, especially concerning protected structures, must be well-reasoned and thoroughly documented.
• High Threshold for Appeal Certification: The refusal to certify the Board's appeal underscores the High Court's commitment to maintaining rigorous standards for appellate considerations, ensuring only matters of substantial public interest proceed.
• Clarification on Certification Criteria: The judgment provides clarity on the criteria for certifying appeals, reinforcing that exceptional public importance is a high bar that appeals must meet to be considered.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Specific Planning Policy Requirements (SPPR)

SPPRs are detailed policies within planning guidelines that govern specific aspects of development, such as building height, density, and location. SPPR1, in particular, relates to height guidelines aimed at increasing density in areas with good public transport access.

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening

EIA Screening is a process to determine whether a proposed development will have significant environmental effects, thereby necessitating a full Environmental Impact Assessment. A finding of "no significant effect" should be well-supported by evidence and reasoning.

Judicial Review and Certification of Appeal

Judicial review allows courts to assess the legality of decisions made by public bodies. Certification of appeal refers to the process by which the court determines whether to allow an appeal to proceed, based on the appeal raising points of law of exceptional public importance.

Rationality and Irrationality Standards

The rationality standard requires that decisions made by authorities are logical and reasonable, based on the evidence presented. Irrationality, often associated with the Wednesbury standard, refers to decisions that are so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider them.

Conclusion

The High Court's decision in Monkstown Road Residents' Association & Ors v An Bord Pleanala & Ors serves as a pivotal clarification on the application of Specific Planning Policy Requirements and the standards expected in Environmental Impact Assessment screenings. By quashing the Board's decision due to erroneous reliance on SPPR1 and inadequately reasoned EIA screening findings, the court reinforced the necessity for meticulous adherence to planning policies and robust environmental assessments.

Furthermore, the refusal to certify the Board's appeal underscored the High Court's rigorous standards for appellate considerations, ensuring that only matters of genuine exceptional public importance are escalated. This judgment not only impacts current and future planning decisions but also fortifies the legal framework governing environmental and heritage considerations in Ireland's development landscape.