D'Alton and Ors v An Coimisiun Pleanala and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judicial-review proceeding was brought by the Plaintiffs against the Respondent under sections 50, 50A and 50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000 challenging the Respondent's decision (ABP-321292-24) dated 7 July 2025 granting permission, with conditions, for upgrading an existing 2-kilometre pedestrian and cycle route in The City. The principal judgment of the court (quashing the Respondent's order in part) was delivered on 26 June 2026. The present judgment (delivered by Judge Humphreys on 17 July 2026) addresses consequential matters following that principal judgment, principally remittal and the precise scope of partial quashing. The Notice Party (Company A) participated. A consequential order was made on 9 July 2026 and further directions were sought; the matter is listed for further directions on 21 September 2026.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the appropriate extent of partial quashing of the Respondent's decision?
2. Whether the court should make or allow an amendment under s.50A(9) of the 2000 Act?
3. Whether remittal should be ordered in respect of the (partially) quashed decision?
4. If remittal is ordered, to what procedural stage should the matter be remitted?
5. What is the status of the inspector's report on remittal, including publication and whether it should be quashed in part?

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiffs' Arguments

• The Plaintiffs opposed remittal in relation to partial quashing, arguing remittal of a part would take that part "out of context" and that the matter needs to be viewed "in the round".
• The Plaintiffs did not accept the Notice Party's proposed amendment that would eliminate the car park.

Respondent's Position

• The Respondent (the commission) was described as fairly neutral on consequential issues and was asked to clarify how it would treat original materials (including the inspector's report) on remittal.

Notice Party (Company A) / Council

• The Notice Party proposed an amendment under s.50A(9) that would have eliminated the car park; that proposal was withdrawn by agreement because it was not acceptable to the Plaintiffs.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
D'Alton v. An Coimisiún Pleanála (No. 1) [2026] IEHC 414	Principal judgment quashing the commission's order in part; source of consequential issues now under consideration.	Identified as the principal judgment giving rise to the remittal and consequential questions addressed in the present ruling.
Quinn v. An Bord Pleanála [2022] IEHC 699	Discussed the rationale for the 2022 amendment and the presumption in favour of remittal where requested, absent unlawfulness.	Used to explain legislative context and to support presumption favouring remittal, including for partial quashing.
Connolly v. An Coimisiún Pleanála [2026] IEHC 224	Authority for the proposition that a development can be sought and consented in parts provided European assessments cover the full project at each stage.	Applied to reject the Plaintiffs' "in the round" objection to remittal of part of a consent.
Concerned Residents of Treascon and Clondoolusk v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IESC 28	Supreme Court authority upholding that an overall development can be consented in parts.	Relied on to state that the principle is settled law supporting remittal of parts.
Crofton Buildings v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IESC 12	Supreme Court cautioning against unnecessary specification of the stage to which remittal is made; presumption that the commission will act in accordance with law and fair procedures.	Guided the court's inclination not to specify a remittal stage absent particular necessity, while recognising limited circumstances where specifying stage may be appropriate.
O. 103 r. 36(1) RSC (Final orders)	Rule permitting the court, when remitting, to specify the stage of procedure to which the matter shall be remitted and to issue directions in certain cases.	Noted as enacted post-Crofton and relevant to the court's discretion about specifying remittal stage and giving directions.
Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky, C-240/09, ECLI:EU:C:2011:125	EU law principle that the Aarhus Convention forms part of EU legal order and may inform interpretation.	Referenced in context of Aarhus Convention relevance to remittal and procedural obligations.
Environmental Trust Ireland v. An Coimisiún Pleanála [2026] IEHC 387	Considered publication obligations and status of inspector reports; discussed publication of amended/withdrawn reports.	Used to support view that original/withdrawn/amended inspector reports are "documents relating to the matter" and to inform publication/consideration analysis.
Carrownagowan Concern Group, Rumberger & Henley v. An Bord Pleanála & Futurenergy [2024] IEHC 300	Authority concerning publication and status of reports and documents relating to decisions.	Referenced in support of the proposition that original inspector reports and other formal documents form part of the record and may require publication.
Clonres CLG v. An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2021] IEHC 303, [2021] 5 JIC 0706	Earlier view on quashed decisions and invalid submissions and their status in the record.	Revisited by the court in light of later authorities to refine the distinction between publication and reliance.
Treascon (referenced as Supreme Court authority)	Principles about unpleaded relief and the court's power to grant relief strictly within pleaded grounds.	Applied to explain that the court can grant unpleaded relief (e.g., partial quashing of an inspector's report) if strictly within pleaded grounds.
O'Sullivan v. Health Service Executive [2023] IESC 11	Principles on draft-judgment procedure and limiting reargument at draft stage.	Cited in directions about the draft judgment procedure and limits on reargument.
O'Sullivan v. Sea Fisheries Protection Authority [2017] IESC 75, [2017] 3 I.R. 751, [2018] 1 I.L.R.M. 245	Commentary on procedural fairness and resisting over-elaborate procedures in judicial review contexts.	Invoked in relation to the limits of the draft-judgment engagement process and expectations of parties.
Attorney General v. Crosland (No. 2) [2021] UKSC 58, [2022] 1 W.L.R. 367	Authority on confidentiality and restriction on publication of draft judgments.	Used to justify directions preserving confidentiality of the circulated draft judgment.
Baigent v. Random House Group Ltd [2006] EWHC 1131	Referencing principles regarding confidential draft material and publication restraints.	Supported directions about confidentiality of draft judgments.
R. (Counsel General for Wales) v. Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy [2022] EWCA Civ 181	Authority discussing restriction on publication of draft judgments and related matters.	Relied on to reinforce directions on draft-judgment confidentiality and conduct.
Public Institution for Social Security v. Banque Pictet & Cie SA and others [2022] EWCA Civ 368	Further authority on confidentiality of drafts and related procedural safeguards.	Referenced in relation to draft-judgment confidentiality directions.
Itkin v. Wood [2023] JRC 101	Example of practice regarding draft-judgment confidentiality in another jurisdiction.	Referenced in context of confidentiality and practice surrounding draft judgments.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded chronologically through the consequential issues identified in the principal judgment.

1. Extent of partial quashing: After discussion and without major objection, the court adopted a compromise preserving historic features while retaining as much greenway widening as possible, quashing (i) demolition between chainage 1610–1780 (so the wall and stile remain), (ii) widening between chainage 1660–1740 (so the car park remains), and (iii) all chainage per drawing GA0011. That order was made on 9 July 2026.

2. Amendment under s.50A(9): The council's proposed amendment (eliminating the car park) was withdrawn as unacceptable to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs advised they did not require an amendment to address junction points. The court noted it has power to amend of its own motion but saw no reason to do so here.

3. Remittal: The court examined s.50A(9A) (as inserted by the 2022 Act) which obliges the court to remit if requested by the developer unless unlawful to do so. The court held the text can reasonably be read to cover partial quashing; if not, pre-2022 caselaw supplies a presumption in favour of remittal that logically extends to partial remittal. The court rejected the Plaintiffs' "out of context" argument as unpersuasive, noting the realistic alternative is a fresh planning application for the quashed part and that European assessments can and should take an overall view at each stage.

4. Remittal stage: The court referred to Crofton Buildings and O.103 r.36(1) RSC, expressing reluctance to specify a remittal stage absent necessity and noting that the commission is presumed to act lawfully and fairly. The court indicated it would not give directions on remittal stage subject to clarification on the inspector's report issue.

5. Status of the inspector's report and publication: The court analysed s.146 of the 2000 Act and concluded "documents relating to the matter" is broad and includes inspectors' reports (including original versions later amended or withdrawn). The court drew a distinction between publication and consideration, accepting that quashed or amended materials may properly remain published (with annotation) while ensuring they are not relied upon inappropriately. The court requested clarification from the Respondent on how it will treat original papers and the inspector's report in the remitted process (whether the original report will form part of the remitted file or be disregarded) and invited responses from other parties before making a final order.

The court also set out and enforced procedural directions concerning the draft judgment circulation and confidentiality and limited the scope of responses to corrections, ambiguities, confidentiality requests and matters of form rather than reargument.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The court ordered partial quashing of the Respondent's decision as follows: (i) quash the demolition between chainage 1610–1780 so the wall and stile remain; (ii) quash the widening between chainage 1660–1740 so the car park remains; and (iii) all chainage per drawing GA0011. The court requested the Respondent to clarify how original materials (including the inspector's report) will be treated on remittal and listed the matter for further directions at 09:30 on 21 September 2026.

Implications: The immediate effect is partial quashing of specified elements of the permission and progression toward remittal procedures. The court signalled a presumption in favour of remittal where lawful (including in partial quashing scenarios), required procedural clarification from the Respondent about the status of inspector reports and documents, and reserved final disposition on remittal stage pending those clarifications. The judgment does not purport to establish novel precedent beyond applying existing authorities and statutory interpretation to the facts of this case.