Introduction

This judgment addresses the limits of judicial review in planning disputes and clarifies the scope of the “family flat” policy under Section 15.4.14 of the Kildare County Development Plan 2023–2029. The applicant, an adult with special medical needs, sought retention permission for the change of use of a detached two-storey garage (100 sqm) to a family flat and the construction of a circa 20 metre glazed link to the main dwelling on the family property. Kildare County Council refused permission; on appeal, An Bord Pleanála (the Board) also refused, expressly noting the applicant’s genuine need but finding the proposal inconsistent with the Development Plan.

The judicial review challenged the legality of the Board’s refusal on multiple grounds: alleged reliance on a “scale” standard not set out in the Plan; the relevance of the 20m distance from the main house; the treatment of the glazed link; whether the development could be regarded as “temporary” with scope for reintegration; asserted errors in the understanding of “residential amenity”; and contentions that the decision should have been regularised by conditions (for example, omitting the link or limiting duration).

The Court dismissed the proceedings, reaffirming that judicial review scrutinises lawfulness, not the merits, and upholding the Board’s evaluative planning judgment. Importantly, the Court articulates that:

• Scale and distance are inherently relevant planning considerations even if not quantified in a Development Plan policy.
• Section 15.4.14 requires a direct and close relationship with the main dwelling, including physical linkage and realistic reintegration; a distant stand-alone building linked by a 20m corridor does not satisfy the “temporary subdivision or extension” concept.
• A planning authority or the Board is not obliged to impose conditions to “reconfigure” a non-compliant proposal into compliance, especially where doing so would itself create a conflict with the Development Plan.
• The absence of third-party objections and references to prior decisions do not curtail the Board’s de novo evaluative role; there is no doctrine of precedent binding administrative decision-makers.

Summary of the Judgment

• The Court emphasised the well-settled bounds of judicial review: legality not correctness; evaluative planning judgment is for the decision-maker and is reviewable only on an irrationality standard.
• “Scale” was lawfully considered, understood contextually as the stand-alone nature of the converted garage and the scale and impacts of the 20m glazed link. Scale is an inherently relevant planning factor regardless of express numerical standards.
• Distance and relationship to the main house were central and properly considered in light of Section 15.4.14, which contemplates a temporary subdivision or extension, linkage by a connecting door, subsidiarity, and reintegration into a single dwelling.
• The reasons were adequate: the Board explained that the proposal failed the family-flat policy’s temporary and reintegration requirements and that the glazed link would significantly impact rear amenity open space and visual amenity.
• The Board was not obliged to grant permission subject to conditions (e.g., omitting the link or time-limiting the use). Omitting the link would compound non-compliance, given the Development Plan’s requirement for direct linkage to the main dwelling.
• The applicant’s personal circumstances were acknowledged but could not override planning policy. The Court found no error of law in the Board’s approach.
• Proceedings dismissed; no unlawfulness identified.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

• Keegan; Meadows; Sweeney; R (Cart) — These authorities underpin the rule that judicial review examines lawfulness, not the correctness of the planning judgment, and warn against repackaging merits disagreements as legal error.
• Baby O; M.E.; Sherwin — Confirm that matters of evaluative judgment (particularly in planning) belong to the decision-maker and are reviewable only for irrationality or other established error. The Court applied this deference to the Board’s conclusions on scale, distance, amenity, and temporariness.
• OAA; JBR; IR; MR (Bangladesh); St. Margaret’s Recycling; O’Donnell v ABP — Decisions must be read “in the round,” not parsed hypercritically. The Court read the Board’s reason on “scale” contextually to include both the stand-alone nature of the unit and the sizeable glazed link’s amenity impacts.
• Meadows; Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann; Campus Oil — The presumption of validity and the onus on the applicant were reiterated. The applicant did not displace that presumption.
• ISOF — Judicial review examines the record before the decision-maker at the time; post hoc evidential development does not ordinarily assist.
• Connelly v ABP — The leading authority on reasons. The Board needed to give the main reasons on the main issues in a way that informed the parties and the Court. The Board’s reason—failure to satisfy the “temporary” and reintegration requirements and significant amenity impacts from the glazed link—met this standard.
• Friends of the Irish Environment v Minister (IECA) — The Board may assess the relevance of observations within reasonable bounds; absence of objections is not determinative of planning acceptability.
• Killegland Estates v Meath Co Co — A decision should not be quashed for lack of reasons if no one could realistically be in doubt about them. This supported the sufficiency of the Board’s explanations.
• Grealish; Porter v ABP — While inconsistent administrative decisions may sometimes require explanation, there is no doctrine of stare decisis binding the Board. The Court reaffirmed no general obligation to reconcile present decisions with past ones.
• McGowan v An Coimisiún Pleanála [2025] IEHC 405 — Cited for a synthesis of judicial review principles; the Court used it as a succinct restatement of the controlling framework.

Legal Reasoning

1) Scale as an inherent planning consideration: The applicant argued that Section 15.4.14 contains no explicit floor area cap and thus “scale” was irrelevant. The Court rejected this as unduly narrow. Planning judgment demands attention to text, context, and purpose; “scale” is inherently relevant to proper planning and sustainable development. Here, “scale” encompassed both the stand-alone character of the converted garage and the extensive 20m glazed link and its amenity implications.

2) Distance and the family-flat policy (Section 15.4.14): The policy describes a family flat as a temporary subdivision or extension; requires direct linkage to the main dwelling by a connecting door; insists on subsidiarity; and contemplates reintegration into a single dwelling when the need ceases. The Court held that distance from and relationship to the main house are plainly relevant and, depending on configuration, can render a proposal inconsistent with the policy. A stand-alone structure 20m distant, connected by a long corridor, failed to satisfy the “temporary” and reintegration rationale of the policy.

3) Glazed link and reasons: The Board found that the glazed link undermined the “temporary” character and would significantly impact rear amenity open space and visual amenity. Applying Connelly and Killegland Estates, the Court held the reasons clear and sufficient. The suggestion that conditions could have “fixed” the proposal (e.g., omitting the link or limiting duration) failed because:

• There is no legal duty on the Board to reconfigure or salvage a non-compliant proposal by conditions.
• Omitting the link would itself breach the Development Plan’s linkage requirement.

4) Temporariness and reintegration: Whether a unit is genuinely capable of reintegration is an evaluative question. The Court held that the Board’s view—that the stand-alone garage 20m away could not realistically revert to an integrated part of the dwelling—was within the lawful scope of its planning judgment. A time-limit condition would not remedy the structural failings vis-à-vis policy requirements.

5) Residential amenity: The Court rejected the argument that the Board misstated or misapplied the concept. Impacts on rear open space and visual amenity fall squarely within residential amenity considerations. The Inspector’s observation that the garage conversion design would not detract from the main dwelling did not contradict the Board’s conclusion regarding the glazed link’s adverse amenity effects.

6) Prior decisions and absence of objections: The Board was not bound by a prior appeal decision (PL09.315309) or obliged to justify divergence from it. Nor did the absence of third-party objections curtail the Board’s evaluative function. The planning process is not a plebiscite; compliance with policy and proper planning considerations governs.

Impact and Significance

• Family-flat applications: This decision underscores that “family flat” permissions require true physical integration with the main dwelling and a realistic capacity to revert to a single dwelling. Long corridors to remote outbuildings will struggle to meet the policy’s “temporary subdivision or extension” purpose.
• Conditions practice: The Court draws a bright line: planning authorities and the Board have no obligation to use conditions to retrofit non-compliant proposals into compliance, especially where the necessary condition would create a fresh inconsistency with the Development Plan. Applicants should submit inherently compliant designs; “condition-as-cure” arguments will be given short shrift.
• Administrative consistency: The reaffirmation that there is no doctrine of precedent for administrative decision-makers reduces reliance on prior permissions as quasi-binding. Applicants should address the current policy matrix and the site-specific facts rather than lean on comparators.
• Personal circumstances: The Court is sympathetic but clear: personal need is a relevant consideration, not a trump card over policy. Expect continued emphasis on policy compliance even for socially compelling cases.
• Drafting and plan interpretation: Development Plans will be read purposively: text, context, and purpose. Lack of granular numerical standards (e.g., specific maximum distances) does not render scale and distance irrelevant. Authorities can refuse on such inherently relevant grounds where policy logic warrants.
• Litigation strategy: Judicial review challenges to refusals grounded in evaluative planning judgment face a high bar. Unless a clear legal error, irrationality, or failure of reasons is shown, courts will not substitute their view.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Judicial review vs. merits appeal: Judicial review checks legality (process, reasoning, statutory compliance), not whether the decision was “right” on the facts. Planning judgments—like assessing amenity or interpreting policy terms—are for the decision-maker unless irrational.
• Family flat (Section 15.4.14, Kildare CDP): A “temporary subdivision or extension” of an existing house to accommodate an immediate family member. Must be:
  • Linked directly to the main dwelling by a connecting door;
  • Subsidiary in scale (typically one-bedroom unless exceptional need demonstrated);
  • Capable of full reintegration to a single dwelling when the need ends.
• Scale and distance: Even if not numerically defined, they are inherently relevant. A stand-alone unit far from the main house is less likely to meet “temporary subdivision or extension” and “reintegration” requirements.
• Residential amenity: Encompasses impacts on privacy, open space, outlook, and visual character. A long glazed corridor across rear open space can significantly affect amenity.
• Reasons requirement (Connelly): The decision must state the main reasons on the main issues so affected parties understand why and can decide on challenge; and so a court can review the decision.
• No duty to “condition into compliance”: Authorities may refuse rather than craft conditions to remodel a proposal into line with policy—particularly where the condition would itself create a new conflict.
• No administrative precedent: Unlike courts, planning authorities and the Board are not bound by their prior decisions; while consistency is desirable, each case turns on its own facts and contemporary policy.
• Presumption of validity: Administrative decisions are presumed valid; the applicant bears the burden of showing illegality.

Practical Takeaways for Applicants and Planning Authorities

• For family-flat proposals, aim for genuine integration with the main dwelling: short, direct internalized connections; avoid long corridors or detached configurations that undermine the “temporary” and reintegration rationale.
• Demonstrate subsidiarity in scale beyond bedroom count: show that the unit reads as an extension/subdivision of the house rather than a separate dwelling.
• Do not rely on the prospect of conditions to fix fundamental policy conflicts. Submit designs that are inherently compliant with the development plan wording and purpose.
• Prepare robust amenity analyses: quantify and illustrate impacts on rear open space and visual amenity. Design out elongated links that fragment private open space or dominate the rear curtilage.
• Treat prior permissions as informative, not determinative. Address the current plan’s text, context, and purpose head-on.
• Recognize that personal need is relevant but not dispositive; proposals must still align with proper planning and sustainable development.

Conclusion

Moran v An Bord Pleanála fortifies several core propositions in Irish planning law. First, it confirms that scale and distance are inherently relevant planning considerations, even absent explicit numerical standards, and may legitimately ground a refusal where the policy’s purpose—here, a temporary, subsidiary, and reintegrable family flat—would be frustrated by the proposal’s form. Second, it clarifies that neither planning authorities nor the Board are obliged to impose conditions to “rescue” a non-compliant design, particularly if the condition would itself breach a Development Plan requirement. Third, it reiterates that administrative bodies are not bound by precedent in the judicial sense and that adequate reasons need only address the main issues in a clear, intelligible manner.

The judgment will resonate in the assessment of family-flat applications and analogous schemes nationwide. It counsels applicants to design for policy compliance from the outset and signals to decision-makers that purposive interpretation of Development Plan policies, coupled with clear reasons on key amenity and policy-fit issues, will be sustained on review. While sympathetic personal circumstances properly inform the planning balance, they do not override statutory frameworks or Development Plan policies. In this case, the Board’s refusal was lawful, reasoned, and within the bounds of its evaluative planning judgment; the High Court dismissed the challenge accordingly.