Comprehensive Masterplans Must Cover the Entire Institutional Landholding: INST Designation Determined by Ownership and Use, Not Map Pinpointing

Introduction

In Churchfields Management Company CLG v An Bord Pleanála & Ors [2025] IEHC 495, the High Court (Farrell J.) quashed a strategic housing development (SHD) permission granted to Winterbrook Homes Limited for 231 residential units at Mount St. Mary’s, Dundrum, Dublin 14. The core dispute concerned how to interpret “institutional lands” provisions and the INST designation in the Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Development Plan 2016–2022 (CDP), and whether a “comprehensive masterplan” was required to encompass all lands that formed part of the historic institutional holding, including adjoining sports fields, notwithstanding different underlying zonings (A and F) and subsequent change of ownership.

The Applicant, the owners’ management company of the neighbouring Churchfields Estate, argued that the Board’s decision materially contravened the CDP because the proposed development proceeded without a masterplan for the entire institutional site as envisaged by sections 2.1.3.5 (Policy RES5) and 8.2.3.4(xi) of the CDP. The Board and the developer maintained that the development did not materially contravene those provisions, and that any issues were remedied by condition or were otherwise not engaged.

The judgment is significant for its careful articulation of how institutional land designations should be read in development plans: by reference to the factual matrix at the time the plan was adopted (ownership and institutional use), rather than by the precise location of an INST symbol on a map or by the zoning that happens to apply to a part of the land. It also reaffirms that a “comprehensive masterplan” for institutional sites must be genuinely comprehensive, potentially requiring cooperation of multiple landowners, and cannot be confined to the applicant’s red-line site.

Summary of the Judgment

Farrell J. granted an order of certiorari quashing the Board’s 25 August 2021 decision (ABP-310138-20). The Court held:

The CDP’s INST designation applied to the entire historic institutional landholding owned by the Marist Fathers when the 2016 CDP was adopted, including the main site (zoned A) and the adjoining CUS sports fields to the south (zoned F).
On those facts, the CDP’s masterplan requirement for institutional lands (section 8.2.3.4(xi)) envisaged a “comprehensive masterplan” for the whole institutional site—buildings and playing fields together.
No such comprehensive masterplan was submitted; nor was any material contravention identified by the developer in its SHD application. Given the Redmond line of authority, that omission rendered the application invalid and the Board’s decision ultra vires.
Condition 2 (requiring the omission of a block and its conversion to open space) could not cure the foundational invalidity; the plan must be assessed against the CDP’s requirements at application stage.
Other grounds (including SEA arguments and issues around density and separation distances) were not determined, as the case was resolved on the institutional lands/masterplan point. A general SEA ground was formally maintained but rejected in light of existing authority (Ballyboden TTG).

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Sherwin v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IESC 13: The Supreme Court emphasised that interpretation of a development plan is a matter of law for the courts; misinterpretation is a jurisdictional error. Development plans are not construed like statutes; they are read in their ordinary meaning as understood by the public and planning actors. Farrell J. adopted this lens, anchoring the analysis in the “intelligent reader” standard and ensuring the CDP is interpreted consistently across application types.
Redmond v An Bord Pleanála (No. 1) [2020] IEHC 151; (No. 2) [2020] IEHC 322 (Simons J.):
- Clarified that an institutional lands designation is not a zoning objective; rather, it regulates the circumstances and conditions (e.g., open space) under which development permissible under the applicable zoning may proceed.
- Explained that failure to identify a material contravention in an SHD application renders the application invalid.
- Applied the planning “unit” analysis to determine the extent of institutional lands, drawing on Burdle (below).
Farrell J. relied heavily on Redmond’s analytical framework—especially the focus on ownership and use at plan adoption and the consequences of not flagging a material contravention in SHD.
Re XJS Investments Ltd [1986] IR 750; Tennyson v Corporation of Dún Laoghaire [1991] 2 IR 527: These authorities provide the well-known principles for construing development plans, including the “intelligent reader” approach. The Court invoked these to assess how a lay reader would understand the scope of the INST designation in the DLR CDP.
Burdle v Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 1 WLR 1207: Bridge LJ’s “working rule” on the “planning unit” (assume the unit of occupation unless a smaller unit can be recognised as a separate use physically and functionally) underpinned the Court’s conclusion that the buildings and the sports fields formed a single institutional planning unit when the CDP was adopted.
Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 722 (Holland J.): Cited in relation to SEA arguments, which the applicant formally maintained but did not substantively argue. Farrell J. rejected the SEA ground in line with this adverse authority.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolds in six interlocking steps:

Interpretation of the CDP is a legal question judged by the “intelligent reader”. Citing Sherwin, the Court reiterated that misreading a development plan is a jurisdictional error. The plan must be read in its ordinary, purposive sense by an informed lay reader who understands planning processes.
INST is a designation that can overlay any zoning; it is not confined by zoning labels or map symbol placement. The DLR CDP does not limit the INST designation to particular zonings, nor exclude it from lands zoned F. The mere location of the “INST” symbol on the map does not delimit the designation’s geographic reach. Because the CDP did not precisely bound the institutionally designated lands, their extent must be inferred through interpretation.
Ownership and institutional use at the date of plan adoption determine the scope of “institutional lands”. At the time the 2016 CDP was adopted, the Marist Fathers owned both the main site (zoned A) and the CUS playing fields (zoned F). Both were in institutional use as part of the wider Marist estate—even if the CUS school itself is elsewhere. There was no clear physical boundary demarcating these parcels as separate sites. Applying Redmond and Burdle, the Court concluded that the buildings and fields formed a single planning unit and thus a single “institutional site” for the purposes of the CDP.
The masterplan requirement in section 8.2.3.4(xi) demands a genuinely comprehensive plan for the entire institutional site. The CDP stipulates that “a comprehensive masterplan should accompany a planning application for institutional sites” and that each application must show conformity with the agreed masterplan. On the facts, “comprehensive” meant a plan covering both the northern buildings and the southern playing fields together. The developer’s masterplan—limited to its own red-line lands—did not satisfy this requirement.
No material contravention was identified; an SHD application that fails to flag and justify material contraventions is invalid. Consistent with Redmond, the failure to include a material contravention statement addressing the masterplan requirement (and the open character/RES5 context) rendered the application invalid. The Board’s reliance on section 37(2)(b) could not lawfully cure a material contravention in SHD unless it had been expressly identified in the application per section 9(6)(c) of the 2016 Act. The applicant’s concession that no such statement was provided was critical.
Conditions cannot remedy a foundational application-stage defect. The Board’s Condition 2 (omitting a block and adding open space) did not retrospectively provide a comprehensive masterplan or obviate the need to identify a material contravention at application stage. Sections 9(4)(b) and (c) of the 2016 Act permit modifications by condition but do not validate an application that is jurisdictionally infirm from the outset.

Importantly, Farrell J. stressed that development plan interpretation must be independent of the particular application pathway. The SHD regime’s prohibitions on contravening certain objectives (e.g., zoning under section 9(6)(b)) do not alter the meaning of the CDP; there can be only one interpretation applicable across SHD, LRD, and conventional section 34 applications.

Impact and Practical Implications

Although the Court emphasised that its conclusion turned on “very case-specific” facts, the judgment has broader implications wherever development plans contain “institutional lands” designations and masterplan requirements.

For developers and promoters of schemes on or near institutional lands

Do not confine “institutional lands” to the footprint bearing the INST symbol or to lands with a particular zoning. Assess the full historic landholding and related institutional uses as of the date of plan adoption.
Expect that a “comprehensive masterplan” will need to encompass all of the institutional planning unit, potentially including sports fields, ancillary open space, or other lands in related institutional use—even if owned by third parties or zoned differently (e.g., F).
If cooperation to prepare such a masterplan is not achievable, a developer must squarely address this as a material contravention, include an explicit material contravention statement, and justify it under section 37(2)(b). Failure to do so risks invalidation of the permission.
Conditions cannot retroactively cure a failure to provide a required comprehensive masterplan or to identify a material contravention at application stage.
While SHD has been replaced by the large-scale residential development (LRD) procedure, the interpretive approach to development plans and the consequences of material contraventions remain directly relevant to LRD and section 34 processes.

For An Bord Pleanála (and planning authorities)

When an application engages institutional lands policies, the Board must probe whether the institutional planning unit extends beyond the red line, by reference to ownership and institutional use at plan adoption. The presence or absence of an INST symbol at a particular point is not determinative.
Where a comprehensive masterplan is required, a plan confined to the applicant’s lands will generally not suffice. Absent an agreed comprehensive masterplan, the Board should treat the proposal as a material contravention and require explicit compliance with section 37(2)(b) procedures.
In drafting and revising development plans, planning authorities may consider mapping institutional land extents with greater precision (e.g., polygon geometry) to reduce litigation risk from interpretive ambiguity.

For community stakeholders

The decision underscores that institutional lands carry plan-level expectations of openness and masterplanning, not easily sidestepped by parcel-by-parcel applications.
Where applications omit adjoining institutional functions (e.g., playing fields), third parties have a clear line of challenge grounded in plan interpretation and material contravention procedure.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Institutional lands (INST designation): A development plan label used to signal that lands associated with institutions (schools, religious orders, hospitals) should retain their open character and be masterplanned. It is not a zoning; it overlays whatever zoning applies and affects how development may proceed.
Zoning vs designation: Zoning (e.g., A or F) sets permissible uses in principle. Designations like INST regulate the way development proceeds (e.g., masterplanning, open space quantum), even where the zoning allows residential use.
Comprehensive masterplan (CDP s. 8.2.3.4(xi)): A plan addressing the whole institutional site, taking account of built and natural assets and public access. In this case, “comprehensive” meant including both the former seminary lands and the CUS playing fields.
Material contravention: A departure from the development plan. Under section 37(2)(b) P&D Act 2000, a permission may issue in material contravention in defined circumstances, but in SHD a contravention must be identified in the application documents (2016 Act, s.9(6)(c)). Failure to identify renders the application invalid.
Planning unit (Burdle rule): The default unit for planning assessment is the whole unit of occupation unless a smaller, physically and functionally distinct unit can be identified. Here, the Court treated the buildings and playing fields as one institutional planning unit in 2016.
Independence of plan interpretation from procedure: The meaning of plan provisions does not vary between SHD, LRD, or standard applications. The procedural context cannot be used to bend the plan’s meaning.
SEA Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC): Requires environmental assessment of plans/programmes. A general SEA challenge was formally maintained but rejected in light of adverse High Court authority (Ballyboden TTG).

Conclusion

Churchfields Management v An Bord Pleanála clarifies, in a practically important way, how “institutional lands” must be understood in the DLR CDP: the INST designation tracks the entire historic institutional planning unit based on ownership and use at the time of plan adoption, not the cartographic placement of an INST label and not the split between A and F zonings. The corollary is that section 8.2.3.4(xi)’s “comprehensive masterplan” requirement is genuinely comprehensive—encompassing all of that institutional site. Where such a masterplan is absent and a developer cannot secure cooperation from other landowners, the correct route is to present and justify a material contravention in the application. If not, the application is invalid and any ensuing grant is vulnerable to quashing.

Key takeaways:

INST designation can span multiple zonings; map symbol placement does not confine its reach.
The institutional planning unit is defined by ownership and use at plan adoption.
A “comprehensive masterplan” must include the whole institutional site; a red-line-only plan falls short.
In SHD (and analogously in LRD), failure to identify a material contravention is fatal.
Conditions cannot remedy foundational defects in application validity.

While rooted in the particularities of the Marist Fathers’ lands at Dundrum, the judgment sets a clear interpretative approach likely to shape future treatment of institutional lands across Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown and beyond. It is a salient reminder that development plan commitments to comprehensiveness, openness, and coherent planning for institutional estates are enforceable legal standards, not aspirational guidance.

Case and Citation

Churchfields Management Company CLG v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and the Attorney General; Winterbrook Homes Limited (Notice Party) [2025] IEHC 495, High Court (Planning & Environment), judgment of Farrell J., 19 September 2025, Record No. 2021/874 JR.