High Court quashes bus stop approval for privacy breach, ruling Board failed to address core concerns.

THE HIGH COURT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT [2025] IEHC 505 Record No. 2024 / 297 JR

Between:

ÁINE KELLY Applicant -and- AN COIMISIÚN PLEANÁLA Respondent -and- NATIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Notice Parties -and- (BY ORDER)

MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT, IRELAND AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Emily Farrell delivered the 23rd day of September 2025

Introduction

1. This matter concerns a challenge to the approval by An Bord Pleanála on 8th January 2024 of the proposed road development consisting of the construction of the Clongriffin to City Centre Bus Corridor Scheme, under section 51 of the Roads Act 1993. (ABP-313182-22)

The Applicant is affected by the Scheme by reason of the proposed placing of a bus stop directly outside her house. There is no intermediate garden or wall between the bus stop, at which passengers will congregate, and the Applicant’s windows and front door which open directly onto the path. The Applicant complains that this is the only bus stop in front of a house without a garden within this Scheme, and the only new bus stop being placed outside a residence.

2. The Applicant resides in a 19th Century cottage which opens directly onto the public footpath where the National Transport Authority (NTA) has chosen to locate a bus stop as part of the BusConnects Clongriffin to Dublin City Centre Core Bus Corridor Scheme (the ‘Clongriffin Scheme’). This bus stop is being put in place in tandem with the removal of two bus stops and takes account of the alteration of the 104 bus route, which will no longer run along Kilmore Road/Malahide Road, rendering a third bus stop redundant. The Applicant described her position as unique in her submissions to the Board, and such a description is apt. As noted by the Inspector, the cottages are not protected structures nor are they in an Architectural Conservation Area. As stated in the submission dated 10th May 2022, from residents of [a terrace of] Cottages including the Applicant, the cottages “are unique along the length of the above scheme, in their situation directly on the road, without the benefit of front gardens.” By reason of the width of the path, a bus shelter is not proposed; a bus stop and pole for the RTPI sign are included in the scheme. The bus routes serviced by this bus stop will include the D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D9 (during peak periods only) and Radial Routes

20 and 21, which appears to involve some 24-hour operation. It is suggested that anything up to 30 buses per hour may stop at this bus stop at peak times.

3. The Core Bus Corridor Scheme is a complex scheme, the aim of which is to provide a sustainable and efficient public transport system together with cycling infrastructure, and it is one element of a Dublin-wide network of Core Bus Corridors.

4. There were three rounds of public participation for the Clongriffin Scheme prior to the application being made under section 51 of the Roads Act 1993 as amended. The stop at Danieli Road (1219) was removed prior to the first round of public consultation, and the stop at Killester Avenue (1220) was removed between the first and second public consultation rounds. The bus stop which will be positioned outside the Applicant’s home was included in the third iteration of the proposed scheme, before the third round of public consultation. The proceedings do not include a challenge the public participation process.

5. The Bus Stop Review Methodology devised and utilised by the NTA was applied by it to locate a bus stop outside the Applicant’s home. The Applicant does not seek to impugn the Methodology as such in the sense that she raises a separate issue, namely the impact on her rights rather than bus-related efficiency alone. As is normal in relation to the status of a developer as notice party, no relief is sought against the NTA.

6. The task of the NTA in devising a system of bus routes, including routes along spines into, and through Dublin city, and orbital routes is extremely complex. There is a myriad of factors in play in deciding how best to choose a route and determine where bus stops should be placed. The location and spacing of bus stops are described by the NTA as “key considerations in achieving the objectives of sustainable public transport schemes, with a view to enhancing capacity and accessibility, thereby increasing the use of public transport.” Self-evidently “bus stops are critical for the successful operation of bus routes.”

Such a general statement does not have the effect that the bus stop outside the Applicant’s house is critical to the success of the Clongriffin Scheme.

7. At a general level, one can see some merit in the point made in the Affidavit of Joe Seymour that “The identification of bus stop locations simply by reference to the type of residential property in particular locations, to the exclusion or minimisation of all other factors, would make it almost impossible to provide bus stops in urban/built-up areas.” That does not have the effect that if specific concerns are raised about a specific bus stop, they can be dismissed without legally adequate consideration.

8. Following the making of the application for consent and approval of the CPO, by the NTA to an Bord Pleanála, the Applicant and others made submissions to the Board, and the NTA was given an opportunity to respond to those observations, which it did in the document entitled Clongriffin to City Centre Core Bus Corridor Scheme – NTA Observations on the Proposed Scheme Submissions and CPO Objections, July 2022.

9. A further opportunity was provided to the Applicant to respond to the NTA response to the submissions, which opportunity was availed of. No further right of reply was afforded to the NTA.

10. The Applicant strongly objected to the location of the proposed new bus stop in front of the terrace of houses concerned as part of that Scheme, but she did not submit that the Board should reject the proposed Scheme. The aim of the submissions, dated 3rd July 2023, as explained therein, was to ask the Board to require the NTA to omit the bus stop proposed for the footpath immediately outside her home. The “unique vulnerability of our homes which open directly onto the footpath” was referred to in the Applicant’s submissions in response to the NTA Response document, which submissions explicitly raised concerns in relation to privacy and safety. It was submitted that “Our houses are already vulnerable, as all windows are to the footpath and at ground floor”. The Applicant expressed disappointment in relation to the NTA’s response to the concerns previously expressed and stated “Most seriously for us, the NTA has made absolutely no attempt in its response to address the most grave concerns of the residents of the cottages, namely the impact of this bus stop proposal on our safety and privacy.” The Applicant’s submissions to the Board included the following:

“Due to the lack of front gardens, we have no measures available to us to protect us further that wouldn’t affect daylight, ventilation and views from our homes. Most rooms are single aspect and rely solely on their only window onto Malahide Road for air, light and views. Even without the presence of a bus stop, we experience disturbing behaviour from passers-by on a daily basis: People sitting on window sills, unaware of the fact that these are our bedrooms and living rooms. Teenagers banging their hands against every single window as they pass by. People leaving empty pint glasses (from pub opposite), drinks bottles and trash on our window sills. People spilling entire drinks against our windows. Dogs being let to pee against our doors and walls.

With an increase in frequency of use, and an increase in time spent waiting at a bus stop outside our houses, this behaviour is bound to increase, especially late in the evening when passengers are waiting to go out in town, or after the pub closes.”

11. In a personal letter appended to the second submission made by the Applicant and others, the Applicant stated that she had lived in her home for 20 years and the “safety and comfort is threatened by the proposal to place a bus stop directly on the footpath outside her home …” She also stated that “The prospect of large numbers of people congregating directly in front of our home 24 hours a day (since a 24 hour bus service is proposed) is, quite simply frightening.”

12. The personal submission concluded by stating:

“There are ample alternatives available to the NTA – they have not provided a reasonable rationale not to retain either or both of the existing bus stops at Killester Avenue or Danieli Road, both of which are situated on wide pathways that enable a full amenity with access and bus shelter for all the local residents to be maintained. I implore you to direct the NTA not to place a bus stop outside my home… We are relying on you to protect our safety, privacy, comfort and enjoyment of our own homes.”

13. As noted above, the NTA did not have an opportunity to respond to that submission.

14. The Board approved the NTA’s proposed scheme without modifications.

15. The application for leave was made by the Applicant as a litigant in person. Leave to apply for judicial review was granted in part and refused in part by Humphreys J. [2024] IEHC

364 and a further amended Statement of Grounds was delivered dated 29th July 2024, having been settled by counsel. The Further Amended Statement of Grounds is refreshingly concise and focused, although pleading points have been raised by the Respondent and Notice Party.

Summary of main issues

16. The main issues are, in summary, as follows.

17. Core Ground 1 was deleted following the leave judgment.

18. In Core Ground 2, the Applicant pleads that the decision “is invalid because it constitutes a disproportionate interference with the Applicant’s right to quiet enjoyment of her property pursuant to Article 40.3 and 43 of the Constitution.”

19. In Core Ground 3, the Applicant pleads that the decision “is invalid because An Bord Pleanála did not provide adequate reasons in relation to the impact on the applicant’s rights (as pleaded at core grounds 2 and 4) in respect of the bus stop to be located at approximate chainage [A…] outside the applicant’s property.”

20. Core Ground 4 pleads that “The Section 51 Approval constitutes a disproportionate impact on the applicant in breach of constitutional rights.”

Preliminary and pleading issues

21. The opposing parties raise certain preliminary issues as identified in the Statement of Case:

“1. The NTA and the Board submit that the Applicant does not have leave to apply for Judicial Review in respect of the following issues:

• That the Board ought to have exercised its powers to modify the Clongriffin Scheme

• Any issue relating to the pre-application consultation meetings which occurred between An Bord Pleanála and the NTA.

2. Separately, the Applicant cannot rely on a document prepared by Access for all Ireland, which was prepared after the Section 51 Approval and is inadmissible.”

22. As the matter can be decided on an issue not encompassed by these objections it is not necessary for me to decide them.

23. The opposing parties make the point that there is no challenge to the NTA’s technical Methodology as to how bus stops are selected in general. That is true, but it is not decisive for reasons I will come to. Essentially the Applicant’s complaint is not that the methodology is defective but that it cannot be viewed as so mandatory as to excuse a failure to give adequate, correct and reasoned consideration to the Applicant’s rights, and her submissions in respect thereof.

24. Insofar as there was some suggestion that the Applicant’s privacy complaints were about the existing situation rather than being phrased as an objection to the bus stop, that is not a valid reading of her submission. Certain of the submissions made by the Applicant, particularly the first submission, to which the NTA responded, referred to the NTA having a duty to “protect the properties and their residents and if possible improve their amenities, or at least not worsen the arrangement”. However, it is clear from both submissions that the Applicant’s complaint was that locating a bus stop outside her house would threaten her safety and privacy. She urged the Board to require the NTA to omit the bus stop proposed outside her home. As was submitted on behalf of the NTA, their role, and that of the Board in approving a scheme, is not to seek to improve the Applicant’s situation. The Applicant’s submissions cannot be categorised or dismissed as a being a complaint in relation to her present circumstances. The essence of the submission is that the Board should require the NTA to move the bus stop by reason of the matters set out therein, and specified at Core Ground 3.

25. To borrow a phrase from Hogan J. in Sullivan v. Boylan (No. 1) [2012] IEHC 389 at. 23, “it requires little imagination” to understand the residents’ submission (and in particular that of the Applicant) as a concern that the adverse impact on their privacy, and their property, including the ability to open windows in their homes, would be worsened by the placing of a bus stop immediately outside the Applicant’s home which would necessarily involve the congregating of passengers outside her home.

26. Insofar as the Applicant did not refer to “constitutional rights” in her submissions, or insofar as the Statement of Grounds does not refer to Article 40.5 of the Constitution (which provides that “The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law”) for example, it is appropriate to focus on substance rather than form. Any complaint about privacy and security in the dwelling engages Article 40.5.

That would be obvious to any reasonable person. It is hard to see a great deal of merit in this objection. The Applicant specifically referred to the impact of the proposed new bus stop on her safety and privacy, and did so more explicitly in the submission dated 3rd July 2023.

This is not to say that the Applicant’s property rights extend beyond the limits of the property owned by her. I do consider that the Applicant’s right to personal safety and that of her household applies as she crosses the threshold.

27. While certain arguments were made by the Board, the NTA, and Minister, regarding the limits of the constitutional right to property, I do not consider it necessary to determine the extent, let alone the outer limits of such a right, in view of the submissions made to the Board, and its characterisation of the concerns raised therein as “possible annoyance”.

28. For example, the leave judgment refers to the dwelling but not to Article 40.5 – any reasonable reading of it would be that the constitutional context is implicit.

29. On a proper contextual reading I am satisfied that the Statement of Grounds sufficiently includes the issue of Article 40.5 by necessary implication.

30. It would perhaps have been better if this had been identified by reference to Article 40.5 in the written submissions, but it has been acknowledged by Counsel for the NTA that the point was brought to their attention by counsel for the Applicant before the hearing. None of the Respondents/Notice Party have contended that they were prejudiced in their ability to defend this argument nor did they seek time to deal with this issue. I am satisfied that this issue does arise in the Statement of Grounds and should be considered to the extent necessary.

Reasons and error in characterisation/ consideration of Applicant’s concerns

31. Sub-ground 5(e) is:

“d. The board erred by mischaracterising the applicant’s safety concerns as annoyance;”

32. The issue of mischaracterisation/ misunderstanding of the Applicant’s submission is tied to the question of reasons pleaded at Core Ground 3. By definition, if a submission is misunderstood, it cannot be properly rejected - the reasons for rejecting it must be defective.

It cannot have been properly considered if it was not properly understood.

33. On 4th July 2022, the Applicant made her second individual submission stating among other things:

“The prospect of large numbers of people congregating directly in front of our home

24 hours a day (since a 24 hour bus service is proposed) is, quite simply, frightening.

There is a pub, [name], located across the road; thus, the potential for antisocial behaviour as people wait late at night to catch the bus after the pub closes is clear. I do not relish the prospect of myself and my family pushing our way through crowds of people to enter or leave the house, all hours of the day and night, for the rest of our lives. I enclose photographs of the view through my doors and windows in Figures 3 and 4. The impact this will have on safety and privacy is obvious. Waiting passengers will see straight into our house as we open the front door. We will not be able to open the windows without compromising privacy. Waiting passengers will be able to peer inside our windows and we will be exposed to the increased noise of conversation, cigarette smoke, blocking of light, potential for littering etc. We have no front garden and there is nothing we can do to protect our privacy except to close the curtains and live constantly under artificial light. This is unacceptable.

I am pleading with you to understand the position in which the NTA is placing myself, my family and my neighbours, and the stress and worry this has caused since we became aware of this plan. There are ample alternatives available to the NTA - they have not provided a reasonable rationale not to retain either or both of the existing bus stops at Killester Avenue and Danieli Road, both of which are situated on wide pathways that enable a full amenity with access and bus shelter for all the local residents to be maintained. I implore you to direct the NTA not to place a bus stop outside my home or that of any of my neighbours in [specified street]. We are relying on you to protect our safety, privacy, comfort and enjoyment of our own homes.”

34. What is obvious is that the Applicant was concerned about direct, immediate, ongoing and 24-hour impacts on her personal safety and security in her own dwelling.

35. The Inspector characterised the Applicant’s submissions as follows (para. 6.167 of her report):

“Thus, whilst I acknowledge the potential annoyance of having a bus stop adjacent to these properties the impact to the residents of the ... Cottages is not of such significance to warrant refusal of this significant piece of infrastructure which would benefit all residents along and within the area of the Malahide Road as a whole. I am satisfied that the applicant has investigated all reasonable alternatives and has made appropriate accommodations to protect the residential amenity of the [... ] Cottages.”

36. That is a critical finding in that it interprets the complaint as one of “potential annoyance”

rather than of breach of privacy and of the feeling of security in one’s dwelling. I do not consider that the concerns expressed by the Applicant in the submissions, and particularly as spelt out in the July 2023 submission, can reasonably be considered as “potential annoyance”. No findings were made in relation to security/safety or privacy at this location.

37. The leading authority on reasons is the Supreme Court decision in Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2021] 2 IR 752. Clarke C.J. said (para. 6.15):

“First, any person affected by a decision is at least entitled to know in general terms why the decision was made. This requirement derives from the obligation to be fair to individuals affected by binding decisions and also contributes to transparency. Second, a person is entitled to have enough information to consider whether they can or should seek to avail of any appeal or to bring judicial review of a decision. Closely related to this latter requirement, it also appears from the case law that the reasons provided must be such as to allow a court hearing an appeal from or reviewing a decision to actually engage properly in such an appeal or review.”

38. Observations of participants in a process may range from the relevant to the marginal or even irrelevant. The Board can assess the relevance of submissions in the first instance but within the bounds of what is reasonable (Friends of the Irish Environment CLG & Anor. v.

Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage & Ors. [2025] IECA 128) and of course with due regard to other aspects of the process that make certain issues inherently relevant.

39. In practice this amounts to providing the main reasons on the main issues (O’Donnell v An Bord Pleanála 2023 IEHC 381) read in the light of the other caselaw I have referred to.

40. Here, the Boad did identify the Applicant’s concerns as warranting a reasoned response, but given the nature of the concerns raised, they were objectively major issues such that a reasonable Board would have addressed them in a reasoned way.

41. The purpose of the NTA’s methodology is to identify the optimal location of bus stops having regard to the functioning and efficiency of the bus system as a whole. This is a complicated decision. The basic criteria for consideration when locating a bus stop are set out in Section 1 of the NTA Methodology:

“Considerations for Bus Stop Locations The basic criteria for consideration when locating a bus stop:

• Driver and waiting passengers are clearly visible to each other;

• Located close to key local facilities;

• Located close to main junctions without affecting road safety or junction operation;

• Located to minimise walking distance between interchange stops;

• Where there is space for a bus shelter;

• Located in pairs, ‘Tail to tail’ on opposite sides of the road;

• Close to (and on exit side of) pedestrian crossings;

• Away from sites likely to be obstructed; and

• Adequate footway width.”

42. The Methodology also explains how the distances between bus stops and proximity of bus stops to junctions have an impact on the efficiency of the bus network and considers proximity to safe pedestrian crossing points in the context of pedestrian accessibility. The Methodology does not refer to the issues of security or privacy raised by the Applicant in her submissions.

43. What the Applicant called on the Board to do was to consider whether it was feasible to place the bus stop in a less than optimal position from an efficiency point of view in order to take account of her concerns. There is no evidence that the NTA or Board weighed her concerns in any meaningful sense or took them into account. Those concerns were spelt out in greater detail in the second submission which, in fairness to it, the NTA did not have an opportunity to respond to.

44. The submissions made by the Board, and particularly by the NTA placed heavy reliance on the NTA Response document. The Response of the NTA to the submissions made in respect of the placement of the bus stop outside the Applicant’s home is set out at Section 2.3.2 of its Response document. It focussed on the Methodology and stated that the position had been “assessed to be the most appropriate solution for alignment with the bus stop review criteria listed above”. The criteria listed were the criteria set out in the Methodology (listed at para. 42) The change of the route of the 104 was also considered. Having considered three alternative scenarios in which the bus stop would be moved, the Response concluded that “the location of the bus stop in the Proposed Scheme … is considered to be the optimum location when assessed against the key bus stop review criteria listed above and deemed to provide better alignment to the scheme objectives.” Whilst that document was highly relevant to the issues before the Board, it did not include a response to the Applicant’s second submission, nor could it have done so. However, the Board was under an obligation to consider the submissions made, which included the NTA Response to the earlier submissions and the Applicant’s submission dated 3rd July 2023 and to weigh the feasibility of moving the bus stop to take account of the issues raised by the Applicant. In order to do this the relevant issues have to be properly considered and understood and, if rejected, have to be the subject of adequate reasons.

45. The Inspector stated, at para. 6.69, that the bus stop in question “is a shared bus stop landing zone due to constraints with the footpath. I am satisfied … that given the constraints in relation to this particular bus stop, that the NTA has considered all reasonable alternatives robustly and is clearly left with no other option but to locate the bus stop adjacent to [the] Cottages.” A similar finding was made at para. 6.167:

“whilst I acknowledge the potential annoyance of having a bus stop adjacent to these properties the impact to the residents of the [… ] Cottages is not of such significance to warrant refusal of this significant piece of infrastructure which would benefit all residents along and within the area of the Malahide Road as a whole. I am satisfised that the applicant has investigated all reasonable alternatives and has made appropriate accommodations to protect the residential amenity of the [… ] Cottages.”

46. Neither the NTA, who did not have the opportunity to respond to the July 2023 submission, nor the Board considered whether an alternative position should or could be found to avoid the consequences of which the Applicant complains. The benefit of addressing her complaints was not weighed or considered in rejecting the alternatives and preferring the location which had been chosen. It was not necessary for the Applicant to challenge the NTA’s Methodology. The stated purpose of the Methodology was to select the best place to position the bus stop from the perspective of the safe and efficient running of the Bus Corridor. The Methodology did not purport to balance the concerns or rights of residents along the proposed bus route with the most efficient or optimal selection of specific bus stops.

47. In circumstances where the Applicant’s concerns were effectively dismissed by the Board as matters of annoyance or inconvenience, the submission was mischaracterised and the reasons given by the Board were inadequate.

48. While it is correct to say that the Applicant’s submissions were expressly considered by the NTA (who only had the opportunity of considering the first submissions) and latterly by the Inspector and the Board, mere consideration is inadequate if it involves mischaracterisation. It is not sufficient to simply consider a document described as ‘submissions’ if the contents and thrust of the submission are misinterpreted, and if the Board does not provide a legally sustainable reason for rejecting an issue which it itself has identified as relevant. It has not been pleaded that Board did not consider the Applicant’s submissions to be relevant. It is pleaded, at para. 15 and 16 of the Board Statement of Grounds, that adequate, or clear and stated reasons were given for rejecting the Applicant’s submissions and that the Board was entitled to prefer the materials submitted by the NTA.

49. Insofar as the Inspector summarised or acknowledged various aspects of submissions made, (see e.g. paras. 4.6, 4.10, 6.47 - 6.50, 6.60 - 6.69 and paras. 6.162-6.168 of the Report), these were largely general points about the potential for an increase in crime, for anti-social behaviour, for loss of security more generally in the area, and for impact on child safety, and did not address the specific problem of impact on a householder facing a bus stop at which people will congregate being located directly outside their front door. For example, statements about loss of privacy did not include reference to the location in question (para. 6.134) – this was solely about matters such as removal of hedging and the like which does not arise at the Applicant’s address. The privacy issue there includes the fact that the bus stop will be directly outside the only windows for rooms in her house.

50. This can be illustrated for example by the contrast between the NTA statement to the Board that “bus stop designs have been designed with vulnerable users in mind ...” and the Applicant’s stated concerns regarding privacy, safety and feeling of security as she returns home, literally at any time of the day or night.

51. Insofar as people sitting on windowsills was acknowledged, the Inspector said at para.6.165:

“[w]hilst I acknowledge the residents’ concerns about people sitting on their windowsills, this is not a matter that the NTA can resolve as part of the proposed scheme.”

52. The difficulty in relation to that statement is that the windowsill problem clearly is something the NTA can resolve as part of the proposed scheme through the simple expedient of putting the bus stop somewhere else. Even assuming in favour of the opposing parties that the existing bus stop Methodology dictated that the bus stop had to be at the Applicant’s house, that Methodology is not so sacrosanct and mandatory as to render modification something outside human control, as implied by the passage just quoted. In their favour, clearly the NTA are not responsible for people who already sit / lean on the windowsills at the Applicant’s property, nor can they be required to take steps to reduce that behaviour.

However, erecting a bus stop at that site will obviously be a magnet for people to congregate outside her home, who will have nowhere else to sit while waiting for the bus, as it is accepted there is insufficient space for a bus shelter. That latter situation will lead to more people sitting on her windowsills; it is not inevitable, or something that the NTA cannot resolve as suggested.

53. The Inspector stated, at para. 6.22:

“it is clear that there is an obvious need and justification for the proposed scheme which has been very clearly demonstrated from a population growth and congestion perspective and in the interests of land use and transport planning integration. It is also clear from the abundance of policy documents and plans at both an EU, national and local level that the proposed scheme is supported throughout all levels of government policy and therefore is justified and acceptable in principle.”

54. The Inspector’s report does not include a finding, implicit or express, that success of the scheme as a whole is dependent on the particular bus stop being located outside the Applicant’s house, nor was such contention made by the NTA or found by the Board. To that extent, the reasons for the decision are lacking in relation to the submissions made, and this particular bus stop because they focus, in essence on (a) high level benefits for the scheme as a whole (which may be substantially achieved even if one bus stop is relocated)

and (b) treating technical methodology as final and decisive and as leaving no other options, without considering the other options.

55. A valid assessment of the argument advanced by the Applicant and of the proportionality of placing the bus stop outside her house, necessarily involves consideration of the question whether the bus stop needed to be in that location. It may well be that there was no other option if one was rigidly applying the Methodology – but that cannot be the end of the matter. In deciding the optimal location for the bus stop, or whether other locations were suitable, the Board solely applied the Methodology and did not meaningfully understand, factor in, or give valid reasons in relation to, the specific privacy and security impacts on the Applicant.

56. In Balz v. An Bord Pleanála [2019] IESC 90, [2023] 3 IR 751, [2020] 1 ILRM 367 O’Donnell J. (as he then was) held:

“It is a basic element of any decision-making affecting the public that relevant submissions should be addressed and an explanation given why they are not accepted, if indeed that is the case. This is fundamental not just to the law, but also to the trust which members of the public are required to have in decision making institutions if the individuals concerned, and the public more generally, are to be expected to accept decisions with which, in some cases, they may profoundly disagree, and with whose consequences they may have to live.”

57. The decision of the NTA to place the bus stop outside her home is a decision with which the Applicant profoundly disagrees. She engaged in the process before the Board, which was required to consider her submissions, which were relevant and if it did not accept the submissions, the Board was required to give an adequate explanation for rejecting them.

That is not to say that the Board was required to provide very detailed reasons, but the Applicant was entitled to know in broad terms why the Board did not accept her submission that the bus stop should be moved, and decided to approve the Scheme including the positioning of a bus stop directly outside her home. The Scheme will have direct and tangible consequences for the Applicant and she is expected to live with those consequences.

As O’Donnell J. held in Balz, it is fundamental not only to the law but to the trust that the public place in decision making institutions that they address relevant submissions and provide an explanation if they are not accepted.

Conclusion

58. In summary, the decision is lacking in valid reasons as pleaded at core ground 3 in a number of respects noted above. In particular, matters relied on by the Board do not in fact relate to or answer in a reasoned way the Applicant’s concerns. The Methodology is presented as inevitable and unavoidable when that is obviously not the case when the Board continues to have power to amend the scheme (something expressly reflected in section 51 of the 1993 Act), and when high level benefits of the scheme as a whole are presented as outweighing the Applicant’s concerns, whereas those benefits are achievable anyway and are not necessarily jeopardised by moving one bus stop.

59. Furthermore, the Board significantly mischaracterised the serious concerns of the Applicant in relation to privacy and security at her dwelling as being about “annoyance”.

That was a failure to understand and correctly characterise the submission of breach of rights of privacy and security of the dwelling which in turn meant that the reason for rejecting the Applicant’s submission was legally defective.

60. For those reasons I must uphold sub-ground 5(e) and core ground 3.

61. In those circumstances it is not necessary to decide the other issues.

Order

62. As regards the form of the Order, it was submitted by the NTA and Board that it would be disproportionate to quash the entire scheme if the Applicant were to succeed. At the level of broad principle, I would accept that point, but the parties may require the opportunity to make submissions as to the exact form of the Order. I appreciate that for example the removal of one bus stop may require changes to adjacent bus stops, which may make it convenient for the Court to exercise its powers under section 50A(9) of the 2000 Act to amend the balance of the decision in some appropriate way that would not undermine public participation – for example by maintaining the status quo in relation to one or more adjacent bus stops. I would therefore propose a provisional order, subject to further submissions, that there be an order of certiorari quashing that part of the approval by An Bord Pleanála on 8th January 2024 (under ref. ABP-313182-22), under section 51 of the Roads Act 1993 of the proposed road development consisting of the construction of the Clongriffin to City Centre Bus Corridor Scheme as provides for any works (including the erection of a bus stop) at the row of cottages which includes the Applicant’s dwelling.

63. The matter is to be listed before me on 13th October 2025 at which point application can be made for any consequential orders.

Emily Farrell