Garryduff Properties Ltd v An Coimisiun Pleanala and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

Company A applied to Company C on 29 July 2021 for planning permission for three‑bedroom housing (initially 85 units). Company C sought further information; Company A replied on 21 December 2021 revising the scheme (increasing units to 89) and stating that "over 11%" of units would be one‑ and two‑bedroom units. The Laois County Development Plan 2021‑2027 (the "2021 CDP") took effect on 8 March 2022 and included Housing Policy Objective HPO1 requiring that 35% of residential developments of 10+ units provide for single and two‑person households. Company C granted permission on 13 May 2022. A third‑party appeal to Company B followed. The Inspector's first report recommended grant and did not address HPO1. Company B directed an addendum report; the Inspector's addendum (5 October 2023) found the revised proposal provided c.11% suitable units and did not comply with HPO1, and noted replacement of further houses by duplexes "could be conditioned". Company B refused permission by a single reason: that the proposed development (11% suitable units) did not comply with HPO1 (35%) and thus was contrary to proper planning and sustainable development. Company A sought judicial review (certiorari) quashing Company B's decision. Judge Holland delivered judgment dismissing the proceedings.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Company B breached s.137 Planning and Development Act 2000 by taking into account, and deciding the appeal on, a matter not raised in the appeal process without giving the notices and opportunity prescribed by s.137 (fair procedures issue).
2. Whether Company B failed to give adequate reasons, in breach of s.34(10) Planning and Development Act 2000, for refusing permission and for not accepting the Inspector's recommendation.
3. Whether the reasons given were adequate to explain why the proposed development did not satisfy CDP Housing Policy Objective HPO1 (the adequacy and method of deriving the 11% figure).

Arguments of the Parties

Company A's Arguments

• Company B relied, as the sole ground for refusal, on HPO1—an issue not raised in the appeal—without giving s.137 notice; this deprived Company A of the opportunity to make submissions and thus breached fair procedures.
• The Inspector and Company B provided no adequate reasoning or mathematical methodology to support the claim that only 11% of units were suitable for single‑ and two‑person households; Company A could not challenge the methodology because the reasons were deficient.
• Company A had opportunities to make submissions but, as to certain moments in the process, contended it was unreasonable to expect submissions on HPO1 when the issue had not been raised by the appeal or by Company C at first instance.

Company B's Arguments

• The 2021 CDP and HPO1 were matters to which Company B was statutorily obliged to have regard; they were not, for s.137 purposes, novel matters "other than those raised" in the appeal.
• Company A had multiple opportunities (before Company C and in the appeal process) to address HPO1 and failed to do so; Company A suffered no substantive unfairness.
• Even if s.137 were breached, Company A suffered no prejudice and discretionary relief should be refused.
• Company B's citation of non‑compliance with the straightforward, quantified HPO1 (35% v 11%) sufficed as a reason for refusing permission and for not accepting the Inspector's recommendation.

Company C / Inspector (as recorded)

• Company C's planner treated Company A's RRfI as "acceptable" for introducing one‑ and two‑bedroom units; Company C granted permission without addressing HPO1.
• The Inspector's addendum concluded the revised scheme provided c.11% suitable units and did not comply with HPO1 and observed replacement of further houses by duplexes "could be conditioned".

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Judge Holland set out the factual matrix and emphasised the authoritative role of a development plan in expressing a planning authority's view of "proper planning and sustainable development". The court observed that the 2021 CDP introduced HPO1 in emphatic and quantified terms (ensure 35% for single/two‑person households) and that Company A had itself stated the revised scheme provided "over 11%" such units.

The court analysed s.137 (permitting Company B to take into account matters not raised in the appeal but requiring notice and opportunity) and acknowledged interpretive complexity as to whether matters a decision‑maker "must" have regard to fall within s.137's scope. For present purposes the court assumed, without deciding, a breach of s.137 but proceeded to the discretionary relief inquiry. Applying authorities on fair procedures and de novo appeals, the court concluded Company A had ample opportunity to address HPO1 (before Company C and in the appeal) and that Company A's failure to do so constituted inaction; Company A suffered no substantive unfairness or prejudice. Accordingly, even assuming s.137 breach, certiorari would be disproportionate and relief was refused.

On reasons (s.34(10)), the court reviewed the Inspector's reports. The first report recommended grant and did not address HPO1; the addendum noted non‑compliance but did not itself recommend imposition of a conditioning requirement to remedy HPO1. The court interpreted the reports together and concluded the Inspector did not explicitly recommend replacement of further houses by duplexes to meet HPO1. The duty to give reasons for not following an inspector is particularised; however, on the facts the issue was a simple, quantified one and Company B's terse reason (non‑compliance with HPO1: 11% v 35%) sufficed to disclose the essential rationale. The court applied authorities allowing brief reasons on straightforward matters (Leefield, Killegland) and distinguished GOCE as fact‑sensitive. The court rejected Company A's complaint that the 11% figure lacked mathematical explanation, noting Company A itself provided that figure and that, on a common‑sense reading, there was no real doubt why Company B refused permission.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED

Holding: The judicial review proceedings were dismissed. The court refused certiorari and upheld Company B's decision to refuse permission on the ground that the proposal did not comply with HPO1 (11% v 35%).

Implications: The direct effect is that Company B's refusal stands and Company A's challenge fails. The court emphasised applicant responsibility to anticipate and address development plan changes during pendency and indicated that, on straightforward, quantified plan requirements, a concise explanation may be sufficient. The court did not purport to establish any novel legal principle beyond application of existing authorities and indicated no new precedent was being created.