Summary of Judicial Opinion — Company B v. Plaintiff (Record No: 2022/898 JR)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judicial opinion, delivered by Judge Farrell on 19 September 2025, concerns a challenge by the Plaintiff to a decision of Company B granting planning permission to Company A for construction of an office building at [Number] Main Street, The City (ABP Ref 310958-21). The Plaintiff is the owners' management company for a residential development adjacent to the proposed site (referred to in the decision as Residential Development A). Company A originally applied to the local planning authority on 16 June 2020 for an eight-storey over-basement office development (Reg. Ref. 2872/20). Following submissions and a request for further information, Company A revised the proposal, ultimately offering a six-storey over-basement alternative in its appeal to Company B after an initial refusal by the planning authority on 30 June 2021.

Company A appealed the planning authority's refusal, and Company B's Inspector recommended refusal on 25 November 2021, concluding that the daylight and overshadowing assessments were deficient. Company B met on 7 June 2022 and decided to grant permission with conditions; the Board Direction was signed on 29 August 2022 and the Board Order sealed on 1 September 2022. The Plaintiff sought judicial review challenging the validity of Company B's decision on multiple grounds. Judge Farrell heard the matter and prioritised consideration of the daylight/sunlight issue before addressing other grounds. The court ultimately quashed Company B's decision by order of certiorari and listed the matter for further directions on 13 October 2025.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Company B had jurisdiction to grant permission where the Developer (Company A) advanced an alternative, materially different design in the appeal (Core Ground 1).
2. Whether Company B lawfully had regard to and applied SPPR1 and SPPR3 of the Urban Development and Building Height Guidelines (Core Ground 2).
3. Whether the grant of permission amounted to a material contravention of the Dublin City Development Plan 2016–2022 and whether Company B adequately considered consistency with that Plan (Core Ground 3).
4. Whether Company B erred in relation to its assessment of daylight and sunlight impacts, including whether the Developer's daylight/sunlight methodology complied with BRE209/BRER guidance and EN standards, and whether Company B gave adequate reasons when departing from its Inspector's contrary conclusion (Core Ground 4).
5. Whether Company B's EIA preliminary examination was deficient in failing to identify likely significant effects arising from identified impacts on visual and residential amenities (Core Ground 5).
6. Challenges to the validity of certain legislative provisions relied upon by Company B (Core Grounds 6 and 7), including alleged ultra vires reliance on specific regulations and alleged contraventions of SEA requirements by section 37(2) of the 2000 Act.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Plaintiff contended Company B lacked jurisdiction to grant permission where the appeal involved a unilateral revision producing a materially different development to that refused by the planning authority (Core Ground 1).
• The Plaintiff argued Company B unlawfully relied on SPPR1 and misapplied SPPR3 of the Building Height Guidelines (Core Ground 2).
• The Plaintiff asserted Company B failed to consider whether the proposed development materially contravened the Dublin City Development Plan (Core Ground 3).
• Central to the challenge was that the Developer's daylight and sunlight analysis was deficient, did not correctly apply BRE/EN methodology, omitted numerous affected windows (notably in Residential Development B), and that Company B failed to properly assess these matters and to give reasons for departing from the Inspector's finding of deficiencies (Core Ground 4).
• The Plaintiff submitted Company B's EIA screening was inadequate because it did not identify likely significant environmental effects arising from the visual and residential amenity impacts (Core Ground 5).
• The Plaintiff challenged the validity of statutory instruments and statutory provisions relied upon by Company B as ultra vires or inconsistent with EU directives (Core Grounds 6 and 7).

Company B's (Board's) Arguments

• Company B acknowledged it disagreed with its Inspector but maintained that disagreement with an Inspector's recommendation does not, of itself, render the decision unlawful.
• Company B argued its duty was to have regard to relevant guidelines (including the Building Height Guidelines) and that SPPR3 did not apply in the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff. It also characterised the 27% VSC figure in the BRE guidance as a non-mandatory guide rather than a strict rule.
• Company B relied on planning judgment in finding that, notwithstanding some overshadowing, the cumulative impact would not have an undue negative effect given the central city, built-up nature of the site and its Z6 zoning objective to facilitate employment creation.

Company A's (Developer's) Arguments

• Company A submitted daylight and overshadowing reports purporting to follow BRE methodology and contended the project met BRE standards (reports dated 27 July 2021 and on appeal), utilising thresholds framed as appropriate for an urban area (noting a 20% VSC as acceptable in built-up inner-city contexts per a referenced Independent Review).
• Company A relied on its consultants' modelling and supplementary explanations to support the conclusion that the development would not cause cumulatively undue negative impacts on neighbouring buildings.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Farrell commenced analysis by addressing the daylight/sunlight issue (Core Ground 4), noting procedural and substantive dimensions including the Board's obligation to give reasons under section 34(10)(a) and, where it departs from an Inspector, under section 34(10)(b).

The court set out established legal principles regarding reasons: (i) administrative decision-makers must state main reasons and considerations (s.34(10)(a)); (ii) where the Board does not accept an Inspector's recommendation, it must state the main reasons for not accepting that recommendation (s.34(10)(b)); (iii) case law (including Connelly, Clonres and Balz) elaborates that affected persons must be given sufficient reasons so that they and a reviewing court can understand and engage with the decision.

Factually, the Inspector had found the Developer's daylight/overshadowing reports deficient and unreliable, identifying omissions (numerous windows not modelled), incorrect methodology (use of a 20% VSC threshold rather than the 27% BRE benchmark without justification), and lack of assessment of impacts on external private/communal spaces. Company A's consultants asserted compliance with BRE standards and cited an Independent Review suggesting lower urban thresholds, but there was no evidence that the Independent Review had been made available to Company B.

The Board's decision acknowledged potential overshadowing but concluded that the cumulative impact would not have an "undue negative impact" given the site's central, built-up nature and policy objectives promoting urban renewal and employment density. The Board therefore departed from the Inspector's recommendation to refuse.

The court found the Board's reasons insufficient: the decision did not explain how Company B resolved disputed issues about the developer's methodology, did not quantify the extent of impacts (e.g., number of windows failing applicable thresholds), did not address whether the 27% or 20% threshold applied, and did not engage with the Inspector's specific methodological criticisms. Although the Board's conclusion could be inferred to prefer the Developer's evidence, the sparse reasoning did not disclose why the Inspector's findings were rejected or how the balancing exercise between identified harm and policy benefits was undertaken.

Applying the settled law on reasons, Judge Farrell concluded that Company B failed to provide adequate reasons for departing from the Inspector's view that the Developer's methodology was insufficient to assess daylight/sunlight impacts. Because that failure was dispositive, the court did not resolve the other grounds advanced by the Plaintiff.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court made an order of certiorari quashing the decision of Company B granting planning permission to Company A for the office development at [Number] Main Street, The City (ABP Ref 310958-21) dated 1 September 2022.

Implications:

• The direct effect is that Company B's grant of permission is quashed; the decision is set aside and the matter was listed for further directions (13 October 2025) on which consequential orders may be sought.
• The court did not decide the remaining grounds (jurisdiction, building height guidance application, material contravention, EIA screening, or legislative validity challenges) because resolution of the daylight/sunlight reasons issue rendered further determination unnecessary.
• The opinion emphasises and reaffirms the settled principle that where a decision-maker departs from a reasoned Inspector's conclusion on a material issue, the decision-maker must provide adequate reasons explaining that departure. The court did not purport to set a new precedent beyond application of established caselaw on the duty to give reasons.

Note: All names and identifiable details in this summary have been replaced with consistent anonymised placeholders (Plaintiff; Company A; Company B; The State; Residential Development A/B/C; [Number] Main Street; The City) in accordance with the required anonymisation protocol.