Redmond v. An Bord Pleanála: Interpretation of Institutional Lands Designation

Introduction

Redmond v. An Bord Pleanála ([2020] IEHC 151) is a significant judicial review case heard by the High Court of Ireland. The case challenges the decision of An Bord Pleanála (the Planning Board) to grant planning permission for a large-scale residential development comprising 134 units on lands designated as "institutional lands" under the Dun Laoghaire Rathdown Development Plan 2016–2022. The applicant, Michael Redmond, contesting the decision, argues that the development contravenes specific policies and objectives of the development plan, particularly concerning housing density and open space provision. The respondent bodies include An Bord Pleanála, Durkan Estates Clonskeagh Limited (the developer), and Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council (the planning authority).

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court found that An Bord Pleanála erred in law by misinterpreting the development plan's "institutional lands" designation. The court concluded that the application site remained subject to the designation even after its sale to the developer in October 2017. Consequently, the proposed development violated the development plan's policies regarding housing density and open space provision. The court invalidated the planning permission granted by An Bord Pleanála on these grounds and highlighted procedural shortcomings, including the board’s failure to adequately address recommendations from the planning authority’s chief executive’s report.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases to establish legal principles guiding the interpretation of development plans:

• Tennyson v. Dun Laoghaire Corporation [1991] 2 I.R. 527: Affirmed that development plans should be interpreted by a reasonably intelligent person without specialized knowledge.
• In Re XJS Investments Ltd [1986] I.R. 750: Reinforced the approach to interpreting planning decisions.
• Lanigan v. Barry [2016] IESC 46: Endorsed the same interpretative approach for planning permissions.
• Heather Hill Management Company clg v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2019] IEHC 450 and Spencer Place Development Company Ltd v. Dublin City Council [2019] IEHC 384: Further upheld the principles of plan interpretation.
• Burdle v. Secretary of State for the Environment [1972] 1 W.L.R. 1207: Provided a three-point test for identifying relevant planning units based on land use and ownership.
• Roughan v. Clare County Council (unreported, 1996) & Byrnes v. Dublin City Council [2017] IEHC 19: Established tests for material contravention based on the substance of proposed developments.
• Connelly v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31: Clarified how reasons for decisions should be derived from various reports and documents.
• Balz v. An Bord Pleanála [2019] IESC 90: Emphasized the obligation to address relevant submissions in decision-making.

Legal Reasoning

The High Court's reasoning hinged on several key points:

• Interpretation of Development Plan: The court emphasized that the development plan should be interpreted as a reasonably intelligent person would understand it, without delving into previous versions or external documents.
• Institutional Lands Designation: It was determined that the application site remained designated as "institutional lands" despite the transfer of ownership, as the development plan's policies were designed to regulate land use irrespective of ownership changes.
• Material Contravention: The proposed development violated the development plan's housing density policy (RES5) by proposing 67 units per hectare against the permitted 35-50 units. Additionally, it failed to meet the minimum open space provision of 25%, thereby materially contravening the plan's objectives.
• Error of Law: An Bord Pleanála's misinterpretation of the development plan constituted an error of law, undermining the validity of its decision to grant planning permission.
• Consideration of Chief Executive’s Report: The court found that An Bord Pleanála failed to adequately consider the planning authority’s chief executive’s report, particularly in addressing the future expansion needs of existing educational facilities.

Impact

This judgment has profound implications for future planning applications in Ireland, especially concerning:

• Development Plan Interpretation: Reinforces the necessity for planning boards to accurately interpret development plans and adhere strictly to their policies, irrespective of land ownership changes.
• Judicial Review Standards: Strengthens the role of courts in reviewing and correcting planning board decisions, ensuring adherence to statutory obligations and preventing legal misinterpretations.
• Planning Authority Obligations: Highlights the importance of planning boards fully considering the recommendations of local planning authorities, thereby ensuring cohesive and legally sound decision-making.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Conclusion

Redmond v. An Bord Pleanála underscores the critical importance of accurate and faithful interpretation of development plans by planning authorities. It reaffirms that land use designations within such plans are binding, irrespective of changes in ownership, and that any deviation from established policies, especially concerning fundamental aspects like housing density and open space, can render planning permissions invalid. Moreover, the judgment emphasizes the judiciary's pivotal role in upholding legal standards and ensuring that planning boards adhere strictly to statutory obligations, thereby safeguarding community interests and environmental considerations.