About this case:

• Citation:
  [2025] IEHC 533
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Nolan

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice David Nolan remarked that it was “somewhat ironic that in the middle of a national housing crisis”, Fingal County Council and An Coimisiún Pleanála would reject a proposed development “on the single ground that the applicant, who has lived and worked all her life in the area of a rural village, wishes to live less than four kilometres outside that rural village”.

Background

In 2008, the applicant set up a successful hairdressing business in Ballyboughal, a rural village in the Fingal Local Authority area in which she had grown up and attended school.

For her entire adult life, the applicant, along with her partner and five children, lived in rented accommodation nearby in Lusk, Co Dublin, costing approximately €3,000 per month.

The applicant sought planning permission for the construction of a new two-and-a-half-storey, five-bedroom dwelling in Lusk, 3.6km outside of Ballyboughal. Of the eight existing dwellings for sale within that radius, all were valued at approximately €700,000, were too small or required significant investment, and were unaffordable as far as the applicant was concerned.

The application was rejected by Fingal County Council, which determined that “it is not considered that the nature of the employment meets the criteria stipulated such as to necessitate a dwelling house in a rural area remote from the location of the employment where alternative housing zoned lands are available within the rural village to meet this need”.

The applicant subsequently appealed to the respondent. An inspector appointed by the respondent carried out a site inspection and prepared a report which recommended that planning would be granted for the proposed development, subject to certain conditions.

The application was refused by the respondent on grounds inter alia that she had not demonstrated compliance with the Fingal Rural Settlement Strategy as her business was located 5.5km from the proposed development site and, therefore, was not “intrinsically linked” to the rural area where it was to be located and did not satisfy the needs of those who lived in the area surrounding the proposed development. 

The applicant sought an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent on grounds that it failed to provide any or any adequate reasons for its decision contrary to s.34(10)(a) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and a declaration that the respondent acted ultra vires and/or erred in law by failing to explain why the inspector’s report was departed from.

The High Court

At the outset of his judgment, Mr Justice Nolan highlighted that the net issue was the status of the applicant and the proposed development within the context of a rural location and the statutory obligation placed upon the respondent to give reasons, in circumstances where it did not agree with the recommendation of its own inspector.

Having considered the statutory framework, the judge was satisfied that the central provision engaged was Table 3.5(ii) of section 3.5.15.5 of the Fingal County Development Plan 2023-2029 (CDP) which sets out exceptions facilitating the provision of single housing in the countryside based on core considerations of economic or social need to live in a rural area.

The court observed that the applicant had clearly set out that she could not afford any of the houses within the catchment area of Ballyboughal, and that she needed to live within that area as otherwise, she would become homeless and her business, which brought substantial benefit to the local economy, would close.

Finding that the respondent made no reference to “this crucial issue”, Mr Justice Nolan emphasised the obligation upon the respondent to give reasons for its decisions, particularly where its decision contradicts that of its own inspector.

In that regard, the court determined that the inspector’s report had been “remarkably thorough” and had concluded that the applicant fell within Table 3.5(ii), the applicant not having obtained planning permission for a new rural dwelling since 19 October 1999 and having been in full-time occupation for the statutory period of 15 years and employing 12 people in her local community.

On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that it was not necessary for the applicant to live in the rural area having regard to the fact that her business was located within the urban village and customers travelled there to avail of that service, and where there was alternative housing and zoned lands available within the village.

Mr Justice Nolan observed that this position ignored the undisputed evidence before the respondent that if the applicant could not live close to the business it would close, and the inspector’s opinion that the applicant complied with the national and CDP policies and that she had a housing need.

The judge also noted that in circumstances where the respondent asserted that it had considered all papers and submissions prior to making its decision, it was “remarkable, to say the least, that they did not pick up the error in the decision. That error related to the distance of the proposed development from the rural village which it said was 5.5 km, but it is clear that that is incorrect. The distance in fact is less than 4 kilometres.”

The court further highlighted that the applicant’s business being “intrinsically linked” to the rural area was not a requirement under Table 3.5 and that the respondent’s assertion that there was alternative housing or zoned lands available within the village had no regard to the availability or cost of such alternative housing or zoned lands.

Mr Justice Nolan focused on the inspector’s report which specifically referred to the National Policy Objective 19 of the National Planning Framework 2040, the objective of which is to facilitate the provision of single housing in the countryside based upon the core consideration of a demonstrable economic or social need to live in the rural area, finding that the respondent “did not engage with this issue in any meaningful way” and simply agreed with Fingal County Council without indicating the reason why it so agreed.

As to the respondent’s contention that the applicant’s personal circumstances could not be seen to prevail and that one could not have a “different system” distinguishing financial considerations, the judge considered:

In the circumstances, Mr Justice Nolan concluded that “given the comprehensive report which was prepared by the Inspector, that it is behooven upon the Commission to give reasons why it departed from his recommendation. There is no question of imposing upon the Commission an obligation that is artificial or unworkable. The simple fact is that it did not engage in any meaningful way with its own Inspector’s Report, as it is mandated to do.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court granted the order sought.

Walsh v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 533