Introduction

The case of Crofton Buildings Management CLG & Anor v An Bord Pleanála ([2023] IEHC 240) represents a pivotal moment in Irish planning law, particularly concerning the remittal of judicially reviewed planning decisions. This High Court judgment delves into the intricacies of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended), examining the extent of judicial authority in directing planning bodies during the remittal process. The Applicants, Crofton Buildings Management CLG and Stephanie Bourke, challenged the decision of An Bord Pleanála (the Board) to grant planning permission to Fitzwilliam DL Limited for a Strategic Housing Development (SHD) at Saint Michael's Hospital Car Park, Dún Laoghaire.

Central to this case are issues surrounding the application of development plans, the procedural fairness in planning decisions, and the scope of judicial intervention when remitting decisions for reconsideration. The High Court's decision to certify points of law for appeal underscores the evolving landscape of planning judicial reviews in Ireland.

Summary of the Judgment

In this judgment, Mr. Justice David Holland addressed whether specific points of law arising from the remittal of a quashed planning decision should be certified for appeal. The Board had conceded certiorari, acknowledging that its decision dated April 28, 2021, to grant planning permission was in material contravention of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Development Plan 2016-2022, particularly concerning building height restrictions.

Crofton contested the remittal of this decision, arguing that the High Court exceeded its authority by directing the Board to hold an oral hearing—a power that, under the 2016 Act, lies within the Board's absolute discretion. The High Court, after considering submissions from both parties, certified three key points of law for appeal, affirming the necessity of judicial oversight to ensure procedural fairness in remittal processes.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several critical precedents that shape the judicial review landscape in planning law. Notably:

• Glancré Teoranta v An Bord Pleanála [2006] IEHC 250: Established foundational principles for certifying appeals based on points of law of exceptional public importance.
• Monkstown Road Residents' Association v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 9: Provided recent insights into the practical application of certification standards.
• Crekav Trading GP Limited v An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 400: Offered a parallel in remittal judgments, reinforcing the court's role in directing procedural fairness.

These cases collectively underscore the judiciary's cautious approach in intervening in the discretionary functions of planning bodies, emphasizing the necessity of high thresholds for certifying appeals.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on the interpretation and application of Section 50A(9A) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The key considerations included:

• Scope of Judicial Directions: Assessing whether the High Court can direct the Board to exercise powers beyond its statutory authority, specifically in mandating oral hearings.
• Development Plan Applicability: Determining which development plan (2016 vs. 2022) should govern the remitted decision, given the temporal gap between the original decision and remittal.
• Procedural Fairness: Ensuring that the remittal process adheres to principles of fairness, allowing for adequate participation and consideration of public and stakeholder inputs.

Justice Holland concluded that directing the Board to hold an oral hearing was essential for procedural fairness, especially given the changes in development plans since the original decision. This direction, while seemingly expansive, was deemed necessary to uphold the integrity of the planning process.

Impact

The judgment has significant implications for future planning judicial reviews:

• Judicial Oversight: Reinforces the High Court's authority to ensure procedural fairness in remittal processes, potentially leading to more structured directives in similar cases.
• Planning Authority Discretion: Clarifies the limits of planning bodies' discretion, especially when statutory provisions change between decision and remittal.
• Development Plan Relevance: Highlights the necessity for remitted decisions to be aligned with the most current development plans, ensuring that planning approvals reflect up-to-date policies and objectives.

Future cases involving remittal under the Planning and Development Act will likely reference this judgment to navigate the balance between judicial direction and administrative discretion.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Remittal

Remittal refers to the process where a court sends a quashed (invalidated) decision back to the original decision-making body (in this case, An Bord Pleanála) for reconsideration. This ensures that any identified legal errors are addressed.

Certiorari

Certiorari is a legal remedy where a higher court reviews the decision of a lower court or tribunal to determine if there were legal errors in the initial decision-making process.

Strategic Housing Development (SHD)

An SHD is a large-scale housing project typically involving the construction of numerous residential units, often aimed at addressing housing shortages and promoting sustainable development.

Section 50A(9A) PDA 2000

This specific section of the Planning and Development Act 2000 outlines the conditions under which a court can remit a planning decision back to An Bord Pleanála for reconsideration, including the scope of directions the court can issue to ensure fairness and compliance with statutory requirements.

Absolute Discretion

Absolute discretion means having complete authority to make decisions without being subject to external constraints or oversight. In this context, it refers to the Board's unbounded authority to decide whether to hold an oral hearing.

Conclusion

The High Court's judgment in Crofton Buildings Management CLG v An Bord Pleanála establishes a crucial precedent in the realm of planning judicial reviews. By certifying points of law related to the extent of judicial directions during remittal, the Court emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and the necessity for planning decisions to align with current legislative frameworks.

This decision not only clarifies the boundaries of judicial intervention in planning processes but also reinforces the dynamic nature of development plans in guiding sustainable and equitable urban development. Stakeholders in future SHD applications and judicial reviews will undoubtedly reference this judgment to navigate the complexities of remittal and ensure that planning authorities operate within the prescribed legal parameters.

Ultimately, this case underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law within planning decisions, balancing administrative discretion with the imperative of fairness and adherence to evolving legislative standards.