“Mind the Guidelines”: Ventaway Ltd v An Coimisiún Pleanála – High Court Clarifies Duty to Give Express Reasons When Departing from an Inspector on SPPR-Based Issues

1. Introduction

The decision of Humphreys J. in Ventaway Ltd v An Coimisiún Pleanála ([2025] IEHC 406) addresses a highly contested mixed-use tower proposal on Dublin’s River Liffey quays. The case sits at the intersection of planning law’s three perennial fault-lines:

the standard of reasons required from An Bord Pleanála / An Coimisiún Pleanála (“the Board/Commission”);
the interaction between a freshly adopted development plan and binding Ministerial guidance – here, the 2018 Urban Development and Building Height – Guidelines for Planning Authorities;
the procedural rigours of Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”).

Ventaway Ltd (“the Developer”) sought to quash the Commission’s 7 May 2024 refusal of permission for a 24-storey building. The Inspector had recommended a grant, principally because she considered the scheme to satisfy the criteria in §3.2 and SPPR 3A of the 2018 Height Guidelines. The Board disagreed but, crucially, never mentioned the Guidelines.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Humphreys J. granted certiorari and remitted the application. His core holding is narrow but powerful:

Where an inspector’s recommendation turns on the 2018 Height Guidelines and SPPR 3A, the Board must expressly engage with those Guidelines when it decides the opposite way; silence on a “main issue” is fatal.

Although he addressed numerous other allegations (historic core, cluster, public-realm gain, EIA, etc.), the judge rested the quashing order solely on the domestic “reasons” point, leaving EU-law arguments technically obiter.

3. Detailed Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31 – re-affirmed the “main reasons on the main issues” test; used as the benchmark for sufficiency of reasons.
Ardagh Wind Farm [2019] IEHC 795 – cautionary dicta on challenging refusals; cited for context rather than ratio.
Killegland Estates series – emphasised that obvious matters need no elaborate reasons and that reasons can be located anywhere in the decision file.
Sherwin (2023-24) – confirms that disagreeing with an inspector transforms that point into a “main issue”.
Shadowmill [2023] IEHC 157 – adoption of an inspector’s analysis satisfies the duty; here, by contrast, the Board rejected the inspector.
Multiple authorities on severability of invalid reasons (Element Power, Murtagh) and on the EIA framework (Reid).

Humphreys J. used these cases to draw a bright line: an SPPR empowered to override a development plan must be grappled with expressly; otherwise, “nobody could be in any real doubt” (Killegland test) fails.

3.2 The Court’s Legal Reasoning

(a) Interpretation of the Development Plan

The judge upheld the Board’s reading that the site lay within Dublin’s “historic core” by reference to the 1840 municipal boundary. Because that interpretation was objective and non-evaluative, no extended reasons were required on that point.

(b) Evaluative Planning Judgments

Issues such as clustering, public-realm gain, and visual impact fall within the Board’s margin of appreciation. The court found the Board’s conclusions substantively defensible and reasoned when read with the planner’s and OPW submissions.

(c) The “Fatal Silence” on the 2018 Height Guidelines

The Inspector devoted ten pages to applying §3.2 and SPPR 3A, concluding that the tower met them and could be granted even if it conflicted with the Development Plan.
SPPR 3A is hierarchically superior: it expressly allows a planning authority to depart from a plan once the performance criteria are met.
The Board reversed the recommendation but never mentioned the Guidelines, thereby omitting its “main reasons on the main issue”.
Because plan-based reasons and SPPR-based reasons intertwine, the deficiency was not severable.

(d) Environmental Impact Assessment (obiter)

Humphreys J. opined that s.172 P&D Act 2000 requires an EIA where an EIAR is lodged, even for a refusal decision. If that view stands, planning authorities may no longer shortcut EIA simply because they intend to refuse.

3.3 Likely Impact of the Judgment

Immediate procedural impact: The Board/Commission must now insert an explicit paragraph addressing the 2018 Height Guidelines (and any other SPPR) whenever an inspector has relied on them. Expect revised decision templates.
Strategic litigation: Developers (and objectors) gain a sharper hook to challenge decisions that gloss over SPPRs. Refusals are no longer “low-risk” for the decision-maker.
Plan v. Guidelines dynamic: Confirms that SPPR 3A lives on after a plan is adopted and may trump it. Local authorities must anticipate that their height policies can still be overridden.
EIA consequences (if followed in later cases): Authorities may have to complete full EIAs before refusing major proposals, adding discipline (and time) to the process.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Main Reasons/Main Issues: Courts do not demand an essay; they want the chief “why” on the decisive points. If the decision-maker rejects its own inspector on a point, that point is automatically “main”.
SPPR (Specific Planning Policy Requirement): A binding rule in Ministerial guidelines that trumps conflicting local plans. SPPR 3A says permission may be granted, even if the plan says no, where certain height criteria are met.
Severability: If a refusal contains both good and bad reasons, the court will quash only when the bad and good are inseparable. Here, silence on the Guidelines infected everything.
EIA v. EIAR: The assessment (EIA) is the authority’s job; the report (EIAR) is the developer’s submission. Having an EIAR on file is not the same as the authority reaching its own “reasoned conclusion”.
Historic Core Map: The 2022-28 plan uses the 1840 municipal boundary, not just the medieval/Georgian areas, to delineate the “historic core”. That matters for height sensitivity policies.

5. Conclusion

Ventaway does not dramatically rewrite Irish planning law, but it distils two important clarifications:

When the Commission diverges from its inspector on an SPPR-sensitive issue – especially the 2018 Height Guidelines – it must spell out why. Silence equals illegality.
(Obiter) Where an EIAR is lodged, an EIA with a “reasoned conclusion” is mandatory even for a refusal; shortcutting the process is not an option.

The practical takeaway for practitioners is simple: always cross-check decision letters against any higher-order Ministerial requirements that featured in the inspector’s analysis. If the decision is mute, the High Court has indicated it will not be sympathetic.