“Who Said What?” – The High Court Confirms a Mandatory Duty to List Submission-Makers in Chief Executive Reports

1. Introduction

In Pat O’Donnell & Company v Dublin City Council & Uniphar Plc ([2024] IEHC 671) Mr. Justice David Holland quashed a discrete rezoning in the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028. Although the applicant had mounted a multi-pronged attack, one ground proved decisive: the Chief Executive’s Stage-4 report failed to list Pat O’Donnell & Company as a person that had made a submission on the proposed material alteration. Instead, the report named only the company’s planning agent. The Court held that s.12(8)(b)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (“PDA 2000”) imposes a mandatory obligation to list each submission-maker by name and that a complete failure in respect of a particular party cannot be excused as de minimis. The ruling sets a new procedural baseline for local authorities: who makes a submission must be recorded accurately – not merely “how” or “through whom”.

2. Case Background

The lands: Two contiguous Z6 employment sites beside the Chapelizod Bypass: (i) the applicant’s 1.75 ha industrial headquarters (heavy plant sales/repairs); (ii) Uniphar’s 1.82 ha former warehouse (“the Uniphar Site”).
Draft plan: Both lands retained Z6 zoning, but residential use would no longer be “open for consideration”. Uniphar sought a change to Z10 (mixed-use, 30-70 % residential/office/retail).
Material alteration: The elected members adopted Material Alteration D-0004, rezoning only the Uniphar Site to Z10.
Applicant’s submission (31 Aug 2022): Warned of inevitable conflict between its 24-hour noisy operations and future residents; argued spot-zoning; invoked regional policy RPO 5.6 (retain employment lands inside the M50).
CE Stage-4 report (21 Sept 2022): • Listed “Doyle Kent Ltd.” (planning agent) – not the applicant;
• Summarised one “objection” in a single sentence;
• Re-stated, verbatim, the earlier April reasoning supporting Z10.
Council meeting (1-2 Nov 2022): No motion targeting MA D-0004; members adopted all uncontested alterations en bloc. The plan was made.

3. Summary of the Judgment

Justice Holland dismissed three of the four grounds (failure to summarise/respond, breach of RPO 5.6, factual errors, inadequate reasons) but upheld Ground 1: non-compliance with s.12(8)(b)(i). Key holdings:

The word “shall” in s.12(8)(b) is mandatory; the duty to list the persons or bodies who made submissions is integral, not directory.
The “person” is the substantive participant, not their professional agent. Listing the agent obscures rather than reveals the identity required by the statute.
Complete omission of a party cannot be cured under the de minimis doctrine (<span class="case">Alf-a-Bet</span>, <span class="case">Dalton</span>).
The list serves a democratic function: it alerts elected members (and the public) to whose interests are engaged so that they can navigate voluminous CE reports.
Because the applicant was the sole objector to MA D-0004 and the rezoning was passed en bloc without discussion, the breach was material and warranted certiorari.

4. Analysis

4.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

Monaghan UDC v Alf-a-Bet (1980) – source of the modern Irish approach to mandatory/directory duties and the limits of de minimis.
Dalton v ABP (2020) – agent vs. principal; failure to identify appellants invalidated an appeal.
Southwood Park (2019) & IGP Solar (2020) – high threshold before a court excuses statutory non-compliance.
Christian (2012) – entitlement to reasons for zoning decisions affecting individual rights.
Killegland (2023, SC) – deference to democratically elected members but still a need for adequate reasons; quoted for Article 28A context.

Justice Holland synthesised these authorities to reach two pivotal interpretive conclusions: (i) the legislature deliberately used “shall” knowing courts could still alleviate trivial breaches; (ii) the CE listing requirement is the belt to the separate braces obligation to summarise and respond, ensuring elected members are not left to wade blind through thousands of submissions.

4.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

Statutory construction: Applying Elm Developments and Gillen, the Court asked whether the requirement was “integral and indispensable” to the statutory scheme – it was.
Purpose of the list: Democratic transparency and navigability for elected members; public confidence per Article 28A.
No substantial compliance: Listing the agent is not close enough; members could not infer that the major local employer had objected.
No discretionary excuse: Unlike Byrnes (missing list but ample alternative knowledge), here the omission related to the single objector, and there was no evidence any member picked up the thread.
Remedy: Certiorari of the Z10 zoning; remittal question reserved.

4.3 Anticipated Impact

Local authority practice: CE reports must now adopt a one-to-one alignment between submission-maker and list entry. Common practice of naming planning consultants (or “on behalf of” shorthand) will have to cease or be supplemented.
Volume management: Authorities may need database exports and automated portals to ensure accuracy when thousands of entries are involved.
Greater litigation leverage: Objectors whose names are omitted (even inadvertently) now have a clear route to quash specific material alterations or plan provisions.
Reaffirmation of participatory rights: The judgment dovetails with EU “Aarhus” participation principles and strengthens procedural arms for NGOs and neighbours.
Scope beyond development plans: Although about s.12(8), the reasoning is transferrable to analogous listing duties (e.g. Part 8 procedures, Strategic Housing Development reports).

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

Mandatory vs. Directory: A mandatory statutory duty must be followed; breach usually invalidates the decision unless the error is utterly trivial. A directory duty is one where substantial compliance suffices and courts may overlook lapses.
Chief Executive (CE) Report: A statutory report (Stage 3 or Stage 4) summarising public submissions on a development plan, giving the CE’s planning response, and forming the primary document considered by elected members.
Material Alteration: An amendment to a draft development plan that is significant enough to require further public consultation.
De minimis Rule: The principle that the law does not concern itself with trifles; however, the Court emphasised that complete failure to fulfil a mandatory duty is never trifling.
Article 28A: Constitutional recognition of local government as a democratic forum, underpinning judicial restraint but also reinforcing transparency.

6. Conclusion

Pat O’Donnell’s victory hinged not on grand planning doctrine but on a seemingly small procedural point: getting the name right. Yet Holland J shows why that detail matters – it is the gateway through which elected members and the public trace who is saying what in a labyrinthine plan-making process. The decision clarifies that:

S.12(8)(b)(i) imposes a strict, person-specific listing duty.
Omission of a submission-maker’s name is not curable by references elsewhere, nor by an agent’s listing.
Councils must design processes (and perhaps software) that guarantee accuracy in the face of mass participation.
Court deference under Article 28A coexists with – and is reinforced by – rigorous adherence to procedural cornerstones.

While the substantive debate over Dublin’s employment lands will now return to the Council chamber, the judgment lays down a crisp procedural precedent: If you want democratic legitimacy, start by writing down exactly who spoke.