Crofton Buildings Management CLG v An Bord Pleanála: Establishing the Applicability of Current Development Plans in Remittal Proceedings

Introduction

The case of Crofton Buildings Management CLG & Anor v An Bord Pleanála (Approved) ([2022] IEHC 704) was adjudicated by the High Court of Ireland on December 20, 2022. This judicial review addressed the procedural and substantive legitimacy of remitting a quashed planning permission back to An Bord Pleanála ("the Board") for reconsideration. Central to the dispute was whether the remitted decision should reference the original Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown Development Plan 2016-2022 or the newly adopted Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Development Plan 2022-2028.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court found that the Board had erroneously granted planning permission for a strategic housing development ("SHD") in material contravention of the 2016 Development Plan concerning building height. While both parties agreed to quash the impugned decision, the core issue revolved around remittal. Given the adoption of the 2022 Development Plan post the original decision, the Court had to determine which plan should govern the remitted decision-making process. The High Court concluded that the 2022 Development Plan should apply, thereby necessitating a new procedural setup, including an oral hearing to ensure fair and lawful reassessment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced a series of precedents that elucidate the principles governing remittal in judicial reviews:

• Usk & District Residents Association Limited v. An Bord Pleanála [2007] IEHC 86 - Emphasized the judiciary's discretion to remit for reconsideration to achieve just outcomes.
• Kells Quarry Products Ltd v Kerry County Council [2010] IEHC 69 - Highlighted limitations on remittal when statutory timeframes impede meaningful reconsideration.
• Tristor Ltd v Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (No. 2) [2010] IEHC 454 - Reinforced the principle that remittal should aim to rectify the consequences of an invalid decision without overstepping judicial boundaries.
• Christian v Dublin City Council (No. 2) [2012] IEHC 309 - Advocated for courts to prefer remitting matters when possible to allow administrative bodies to rectify errors within statutory frameworks.
• Prendiville v The Medical Council [2007] IEHC 427 - Affirmed the broad judicial discretion in remittal, emphasizing fairness and justice.
• Clonres v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IEHC 473 - Provided a distilled set of principles for remittal, focusing on fairness, justice, and adherence to statutory schemes.
• Fitzgerald v Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council [2019] IEHC 890 - Demonstrated the Court's role in ensuring that remittal does not perpetuate flawed processes.
• Barna Wind Action Group v An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 177 & Cork Harbour Alliance for a Safe Environment v. An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 629 - Explored the necessity of maintaining public participation rights during remittal processes.

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that remittal serves justice without encroaching upon the statutory mandates of administrative bodies.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court meticulously dissected the statutory and common law provisions governing remittal. A pivotal consideration was the Development and Planning Acts, particularly §§50, 50A, and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended. The Court analyzed whether the Board could lawfully reconsider the SHD permission under the 2022 Development Plan instead of the 2016 plan it initially based its decision upon.

The Court reaffirmed that, generally, planning decisions should reference the development plan in effect at the time of decision-making, not at the time of application. This principle aligns with the democratic ethos of reflective and adaptive planning policies. However, the twist in this case was the error by the Board in not recognizing a material contravention, which had to be rectified through remittal.

Considering that the 2016 Development Plan had been superseded by the 2022 plan by the time of remittal, the Court determined that adhering to the current plan was imperative. To facilitate a fair reconsideration, the Court mandated an oral hearing, recognizing that procedural fairness required active steps to align the application's assessment with the updated development framework.

Impact

This judgment sets a significant precedent in Irish planning law by clarifying that remittal should align with the current development plan, not the one in force at the time of the original decision. It emphasizes the judiciary's role in ensuring that planning procedures remain adaptable and just, especially when administrative errors are rectified.

For future SHD applications, this means that stakeholders must be vigilant about changes in development plans and their potential impact on ongoing applications. Furthermore, it underscores the necessity for administrative bodies like An Bord Pleanála to promptly adapt their procedural approaches to align with current statutory and policy frameworks during remittal processes.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Remittal

Remittal refers to the process by which a court sends a matter back to the original decision-making body (in this case, An Bord Pleanála) for reconsideration following a quashing of the initial decision. The aim is to rectify errors without starting the process anew.

{{Decision-making Process Under SHD}}

Strategic Housing Development (SHD) applications are designed to fast-track housing projects to address urgent housing needs. The process involves pre-application consultations, strict adherence to development plans, and limited opportunities for revision once the application is submitted, emphasizing the need for precision and foresight in initial submissions.

Material Contravention

A material contravention occurs when a proposed development significantly deviates from the objectives or regulations set out in the applicable development plan. Such contraventions usually necessitate strict scrutiny and justification for any deviations.

Conclusion

The Crofton Buildings Management CLG v An Bord Pleanála judgment is a landmark in ensuring that planning decisions remain aligned with current development policies and frameworks. By mandating that remittal processes reference the most recent development plan, the Court reinforces the importance of adaptive and responsive planning regulations in the face of administrative oversights. This decision not only rectifies the immediate procedural shortcomings but also fortifies the integrity and fairness of the planning approval process in Ireland.