D'Alton v An Coimisiun Pleanala (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Plaintiff challenged the Defendant's approval (Order dated 7 July 2025) of an upgrade to an existing 2 km pedestrian and cycle route ("The Greenway") through part of The Town in The County. The approved works included widening the path, lighting, planting, landscaping, and replacement of a historic stone railway wall (dating from c.1849) and an embedded historic stile within an Architectural Conservation Area ("ACA"), and works adjacent to a protected structure described in the record as a water tower ("The Tower"). The local authority (notice party, "Company A") lodged the application with the Defendant under s.177AE of the Planning and Development Act 2000. An inspector reported, the Defendant adopted the report and issued approval subject to conditions. The Plaintiff (residents and local heritage group) sought judicial review, lodging grounds on 29 August 2025 and obtaining leave to apply on 29 September 2025. The main hearing occurred 10 June 2026; a draft judgment was circulated 18 June 2026 and judgment delivered on 26 June 2026 by Judge [Last Name].

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the Defendant failed to have regard to a Local Area Plan or the place-specific provisions of the County Development Plan.
2. Whether the Defendant failed to have regard to non-statutory place-specific plans relied on by the Plaintiff.
3. Whether the Defendant failed to have regard to material objectives in the County Development Plan (s.10(2) issues).
4. Whether the Defendant lawfully concluded that demolition of the historic railway wall and stile within the ACA would not affect the character of the ACA, including compliance with s.82(2) and s.28 ministerial guidelines.
5. Whether the Defendant failed to consider whether part of the wall formed part of the curtilage of the protected Tower and/or to assess the effect of demolition on the Tower (curtilage/setting of protected structure).
6. Whether the planning application documentation complied with applicable regulations (Article 22 et seq.) and whether material discrepancies prejudiced the process.
7. Whether adequate reasons were given for disregarding third-party concerns about traffic and parking.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The Defendant failed to have regard to local place-specific planning provisions and non-statutory plans relevant to Passage West.
• The application documentation omitted or failed to assess demolition of a 170m section of historic railway wall and an embedded stile within the ACA; no ACA character assessment was prepared as required by the County Development Plan objective HE 16-18.
• The Defendant did not apply or engage the Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines (s.28) when a main issue (demolition of heritage features) arose.
• The Defendant failed to consider whether part of the wall formed part of the curtilage of the Tower and failed to assess effects on the Tower's setting.
• The plans and particulars contained material discrepancies regarding works to bridges and other heritage elements, undermining public participation and clarity.
• The Defendant failed to give adequate reasons for disregarding widespread traffic/parking concerns.

Defendant's Arguments

• The application was considered under s.177AE; there is no Local Area Plan for the relevant municipal district, and the Defendant expressly had regard to the County Development Plan.
• Non-statutory plans are matters the decision-maker may consider but is not obliged to; reference in the Development Plan meant they were encompassed.
• The Defendant and inspector assessed heritage matters; the wall had been substantially altered such that replacement would not have significant adverse effects; the Inspector's report and drawings governed.
• The curtilage contention was not raised before the Defendant and would not have been apparent to a reasonable decision-taker; the Record of Protected Structures entry for the Tower does not include the wall.
• Alleged discrepancies in documentation did not prejudice participation; drawings (later formal material) clarify works and the Defendant's decision is reviewable only for irrationality on adequacy-of-information grounds.
• The Defendant provided the main reasons on main issues including traffic and parking; no obligation to answer every submission point-by-point.

Company A (Notice Party) Arguments

• The Defendant discharged the duty to have regard to the Development Plan; express statements of regard suffice absent evidence to the contrary.
• Heritage, ACA and protected structures were considered by the inspector and Defendant; only a limited original section of the wall remained and the inspector found the integrity of the area had been altered.
• Articles of the Planning and Development Regulations cited by the Plaintiff (Part III provisions) do not apply to s.177AE applications; pleadings on those Articles were therefore fatally framed.
• Any error (if shown) would be harmless; judicial review is discretionary and quashing would be disproportionate given the public benefits of the active-travel project.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded stepwise.

• Preliminary and evidentiary matters: the late expert report exhibited by the Plaintiff (report of Mr Maxwell / StoneMax) was inadmissible insofar as it contained material not before the Defendant and was not properly a reply.
• Core grounds 1-3 (statutory / plan-regard points): the Court found no Local Area Plan existed for the relevant municipal district (so Core Ground 1 misconceived); non-statutory plans are matters the decision- maker may consider but is not obliged to (Core Ground 2 failed); general complaints that the Development Plan was not narratively discussed fail absent a specific statutory imperative, although specific plan provisions requiring distinct engagement (see HE 16-18) may require focused consideration (Core Ground 3 rejected in general).
• Core ground 6 (application documentation / Regulations): the Court accepted that Part III regulatory articles cited do not apply to s.177AE applications; qualitative deficiencies in documentation do not alone warrant certiorari unless they compromised the process or flowed into the Defendant's decision (no such fundamental compromise established, save insofar as overlap with heritage issues).
• Core ground 7 (reasons on traffic/parking): the Defendant and inspector provided main reasons on the main issues; a point-by-point rebuttal of each submission was not required; this ground failed.
• Core grounds 4 and 5 (heritage and protected-structure setting): the Court found significant shortcomings. The County Development Plan objective HE 16-18 requires that projects involving works within the public realm of an ACA undertake a character assessment; no such character assessment was prepared. The inspector's and Defendant's treatment of demolition of a 170m stretch of historic railway wall and an embedded stile within the ACA was limited, did not engage meaningfully with the s.28 Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines' prompts (including assessment of contribution to ACA character, effect on adjacent protected structures, alternatives to demolition), and did not address the stile as a discrete heritage feature identified by the former town council. The inspector's conclusion that the area's integrity had been "irrevocably altered" and that replacement would not have significant adverse effects was insufficiently reasoned in relation to the main issue. The Court did not accept that the Plaintiffs had proved the wall formed part of the curtilage of the Tower; the curtilage contention had not been raised at the decision stage and was not shown to have been apparent to a reasonable decision-taker.
• Remedy and discretion: given the heritage defects the Court concluded certiorari should be granted in part. The Court declined to quash the entire permission; instead it ordered partial quashing of the Defendant's order insofar as it permits works within the ACA (with precise form and extent of severance to be fixed after submissions). The Court allowed the possibility of an amendment under s.50A(9) if sought by Company A, preserved remittal as an option, and addressed costs (expenses awarded to Plaintiffs against Defendant; no order as to costs in favour of or against Company A).

Holding and Implications

HOLDING: The Court granted an order of certiorari quashing the Defendant's order in part (the portion authorising works within the ACA), subject to further submissions on the precise form of the order and with an express option for Company A to seek an amendment under s.50A(9) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Costs/expenses were awarded to the Plaintiffs against the Defendant in relation to the relief granted; no order as to costs for Company A.

Implications: The direct effect is that the Defendant's approval is quashed in part in respect of the ACA-related works (further submissions will determine the exact severance or remediation route). The decision emphasises that where demolition or irreversible change to heritage features within an ACA is a main issue, decision-makers must engage expressly with relevant Development Plan obligations (here objective HE 16-18) and with the s.28 Architectural Heritage Protection Guidelines, including undertaking or having regard to a character assessment and considering alternatives and the effect on adjacent protected structures. The Court did not find that the wall formed part of the Tower's curtilage on the material before it, and it did not lay down a novel precedent beyond applying established principles concerning plan engagement, reasons, and heritage assessment; remittal was preserved as an option.