High Court dismisses judicial review as challenge is a disguised disagreement with planning merits and lacks admissible evidence.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

THE HIGH COURT PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT JUDICIAL REVIEW [2026] IEHC 23 Record No: 2024/725JR

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 50, 50A and 50B OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ACT 2000, AS AMENDED Between:

SHANE FORAN Applicant and AN COIMISIÚN PLEANÁLA1 THE MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT, IRELAND & THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Respondents and GLENVEAGH LIVING LIMITED Notice Party

JUDGMENT OF MR JUSTICE DAVID HOLLAND, DELIVERED 23 JANUARY 2026

Contents

JUDGMENT OF MR JUSTICE DAVID HOLLAND DELIVERED 23 January 2026 ....................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Cycling Infrastructure – a Note........................................................................................................................ 5

Role of Private Developers .............................................................................................................................. 6

SITE & ENVIRONS ................................................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 1 Site, Proposed Development and Proposed Road Layout ........................................................ 7

IMPUGNED DECISION ........................................................................................................................................ 10

GROUNDS ABANDONED - DMURS & SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY POLICY 2002 - & GROUNDS Remaining .......... 11

Abandoned .................................................................................................................................................... 11

Remaining ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

SOME PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 12

Reilly .............................................................................................................................................................. 12

Judicial Review is not Appeal - the Commission is Expert – The Court is Not ............................................... 17

Reasons - RWWA ........................................................................................................................................... 17

Whether Relevant Matters Considered & Obligation to Have Regard.......................................................... 23

THE CDM ............................................................................................................................................................ 24

MATERIALS BEFORE COMMISISON ................................................................................................................... 26

EIAR - December 2022 ................................................................................................................................... 26

TTA - December 2022 .................................................................................................................................... 27

As amended by Order of the High Court, made on 15 September 2025.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

Infrastructure Design Report – December 2022 ........................................................................................... 29

Mr Foran’s Observation – February 2023 ..................................................................................................... 29

TII Observation – February 2023 & Comment Thereon ................................................................................ 29

RfI - March 2023 & RRfI - August 2023 .......................................................................................................... 31

Comment on RRfI & on Evaluative Assessment thereof ........................................................................... 32

National Roads Project Office (N6 Project Team) & TII Observation - September 2023 .............................. 32

Mr Foran’s Observation – October 2023 ....................................................................................................... 33

NTA Observation - October 2023 .................................................................................................................. 33

Glenveagh’s Appeal & Technical Note - December 2023 .............................................................................. 34

Mr Foran’s Observations - January 2024....................................................................................................... 35

Inspector’s Report – March 2024 .................................................................................................................. 35

Inspector’s Planning & EIA Assessments of Traffic Impact........................................................................ 37

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ................................................................................................................................ 38

MR GORMAN IS AN EXPERT WITNESS - MR FORAN IS NOT .............................................................................. 38

IRRATIONALITY, REGARD, MERITS & MR FORAN’S ESSENTIAL CASE ................................................................ 42

Irrationality, Regard, Merits & Disguises ....................................................................................................... 42

Essence of Mr Foran’s Case – Cycle Lanes Inadequate ................................................................................. 43

Mr Gorman’s Response ................................................................................................................................. 47

Inexpert Opinions & Non-Mandatory Guidance – No Legal Defect .............................................................. 49

COMMENT ON MR FORAN’S OBSERVATIONS & LENS OF MATERIAL BEFORE COMMISSION .......................... 49

AMENDED STATEMENT OF GROUNDS – LAYOUT & PARTICULARS................................................................... 52

GROUND 1 - REGARD TO SPATIAL PLANNING & NATIONAL ROADS GUIDELINES............................................. 54

G1 Particulars of Ground 1 ........................................................................................................................ 54

G1 Mr Foran’s Position .............................................................................................................................. 55

G1 ACP’s Position ....................................................................................................................................... 55

G1 Glenveagh’s Position ............................................................................................................................ 57

G1: Decision – Pleadings, Prematurity & Regard ................................................................................... 59

Dressed up Challenge to Merits ................................................................................................................ 63

G1: Decision – Reasons, Discretion & Overall decision .......................................................................... 64

GROUND 2: INCONSISTENCY WITH CLIMATE ACTS & CLIMATE ACTION PLANS ......................................... 65

Climate Acts & Climate Action Plans ............................................................................................................. 65

G2: Mr Foran’s Position .......................................................................................................................... 66

G2: ACP’s Position................................................................................................................................... 67

G2: Glenveagh’s Position ........................................................................................................................ 68

G2: Decision ............................................................................................................................................ 68

Initial Observations .................................................................................................................................... 68

Pleadings & Recitation by Commission of Regard to CAP ......................................................................... 69

Practicability of Consistency - Coolglass & Mount Salus ........................................................................... 70

Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................................... 74

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

INTRODUCTION2

1. The Notice Party, (“Glenveagh”) applied to Galway City Council (“the Council”) on 10 January 2023 for planning permission for the “Proposed Development” the subject matter of these proceedings – known as the Knocknacarra District LRD.3 As later granted permission, it is an LRD of 227 apartments in 7 blocks, commercial units, community, tenant amenity and childcare facilities and associated car parking, bike parking, road works and road realignments at Gort Na Bro, Rahoon, Galway – the “Site”.

2. Mr Foran made a submission to the Council on 13 February 2023. Transport Infrastructure Ireland4 (“TII”) made a submission on 15 February 2023. The Council made a request for further information (“RfI”) on 3 March 2023, and Glenveagh replied (“RRfI”) on 28 August 2023. TII made a further submission on 29 September 2023. Mr Foran made a second submission on 5 October 2023. The National Transport Authority (“NTA”) made a submission on 26 October 2023.

3. On 15 November 2023, the Council refused Glenveagh’s application for four reasons. Reason 15 was that asserted by TII - variance with the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines6 as to control of development on/affecting national roads, as it, or the precedent which permission for it would set, would adversely affect the operation and safety of the national road network. The Council asserted that standards were not in accordance with those set in the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines and boundary treatments.7

4. Glenveagh appealed that refusal to An Coimisiún Pleanála (“the Commission”) on 12 December 2023. Mr Foran made a submission to the Commission on 17 January 2024. The Commission’s Inspector, by report dated 14 March 2024, recommended that permission be granted. The Commission on 4 April 2024 decided, reversing the Council’s refusal, to grant permission generally in accordance with its Inspector’s recommendation and it did so by Order8 (“the Impugned Decision”) dated 10 April 2024.

5. Mr Foran, a litigant in person, seeks in these proceedings to have the Impugned Decision quashed.

2 Headings are not a curial part of this judgment and do not circumscribe the content thereunder.. They are provided for navigational assistance only.

3 LRD is an acronym for Large-scale Residential Development as defined in S.2 PDA 2000. Somewhat imprecisely, it can be thought of as development of

100 or more houses, where “house” means any dwelling and includes apartments.

4 In Fernleigh v ABP & Ironborn [2023] IEHC 525 it was footnoted that “Somewhat confusingly, there is, in the formal legal sense, no such legal entity as

Transport Infrastructure Ireland. By the Roads Act 2015, the functions of the former Railway Procurement Agency were assigned to the National Roads

Authority. However instead of renaming the National Roads Authority, the course was taken, by S.I. 297/2015 – Roads Act 2015 (Operational Name of

National Roads Authority) Order 2015, of specifying Transport Infrastructure Ireland “as a name by which the National Roads Authority may describe

itself for operational purposes.” The explanatory note to S.I. 297/2015 explains that this is done “to better reflect its expanded remit following the

transfer of functions of the Railway Procurement Agency to the National Roads Authority”.

5 The other grounds are here irrelevant. They related to the treatment of internal spaces, inconsistency with the Apartment Design Guidelines and

overlooking of other lands with development potential.

6 Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines, January 2012, issued by the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government under

section 28 PDA 2000.

7 This sentence accurately reflects part of the content of Reason 1.

LH61.318687.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

6. Mr Foran is a resident of Rahoon in Galway City and says he will be personally affected by the design of the road works included in the Proposed Development. He says that, of preference, he travels by pedal cycle,9 by foot, or by public transport and daily uses the roads that will be impacted by the Proposed Development. In particular, he uses the #405 bus to get to and from work. The western terminus of the #405 will be within the Proposed Development and its eastern terminus is at Mr Foran’s place of work in Ballybrit. He also volunteers as a marshal on a "cycling school bus" initiative escorting children cycling to the primary school just north of the Site. More generally, Mr Foran has for many years been an advocate of cycling as a form of sustainable transport – a form of the “Active Travel” which, all in the case agree, is an established aim of planning policy. As noted above, Mr Foran made observations in the planning process to both Galway City Council and the Commission, expressing concern as to the road designs associated with the Proposed Development.

7. By way of general observation, I formed the strong impression (I think all did10) that Mr Foran was entirely genuine, convinced and civic-minded in his disagreement with the Impugned Decision on its merits as to provision for cyclists. But he never got mentally to grips with the

• fact that the law makes the Commission, not the courts, the final decision-maker in planning appeals. The only exception is where the Commission’s decision is in some way illegal. Judicial review is important but exceptional – it is not simply, or as a matter of routine, the next stage in a planning process.

• immutable rule that decisions impugned in judicial review can be quashed only for illegality.

• distinction, in judicial review of an impugned decision, between disagreement with it on its merits and its illegality by reason of irrationality

• obligation to plead irrationality (which he has not done) if it is intended to argue it. At trial he stated it as his intention to argue irrationality.11

• reality that his assertions did not avail him in judicial review of non-compliance with many guidance documents, to some of which the Commission was obliged to have regard and to others of which it was entitled to have regard, but with none of which it was obliged to comply as such, non-compliance did not constitute illegality.

8. These proceedings issued on 4 June 2024 and took a somewhat iterative procedural course. Suffice it to say that:

• It now proceeds on foot of an “Amended Statement of Grounds” filed on 21 November 2025 and amended statements of opposition filed thereafter.

9 References in this judgment to “cyclists” and “cycle” and cognates are to the concept of pedal cycling.

10 E.g. Transcript p158. 1111 Transcript p16.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

• The case against the State12 is withdrawn – I return to this issue below.

9. By way of background, an SHD13 permission application14 for the Site was refused by the Commission in March 2020 for reasons not here relevant.

CYCLING INFRASTRUCTURE – A NOTE

10. Perhaps not entirely correctly, in what follows, I use the terms cycle path, cycle lane and cycle track interchangeably. Such facilities come in many forms – at least partly in response to local conditions. They can be segregated from vehicular15 traffic in varying degrees. I do not pretend a comprehensive or technical description16 or a comprehensive description of legal status or obligation. But the following can be generally observed. Some – “mandatory cycle lanes”17 - are in the main carriageway and are delineated by means merely of road markings. In practice, their segregating effect can be limited even though motor traffic is legally prohibited from entering them except for access purposes. Others are in the main carriageway but segregated more effectively from vehicular traffic by bollards and the like. Yet others are “stepped” - below footpath level but above main carriageway level and separated from both by a kerb. And yet others again are distinctly separate from the main vehicular carriageway and effectively segregated accordingly. Those distinctly separate from the main vehicular carriageway may or may not be shared with pedestrians – either by intention or in practice – though segregation is preferable. A cycle lane can comprise a combination of these types – for example, in the main carriageway merely marked but with bollards at particular locations.

11. Whatever may be the legal obligations on cyclists to use cycle lanes,18 it is recognised that their provision along cycling desire lines is good practice with a view to maximising their use and removing cyclists from vehicular carriageways. More generally, I accept that good road design considers and seeks to provide for what cyclists are in fact likely to do as well as for what they are legally obliged, or ought sensibly, to do and seeks by design to encourage cyclists to do what they are legally obliged or ought sensibly to do. No doubt behavioural science and ergonomics have a large part to play in road design. However that design process is predominantly for the evaluative judgement of designers - not for prescription by courts.

12. In a perfect world, every public road would be paralleled by cycle tracks in both directions, distinctly separate and segregated from the main vehicular carriageway and from each other, confined to cyclists only and on routes catering for cyclists’ every desire line. As will be immediately appreciated, that is in reality

12 Which comprised Reliefs at §§D(c)-(i) and Grounds 3 and 4 of the Amended Statement of Grounds.

13 Strategic Housing Development within the meaning of the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016.

14 TA61.305982.

15 I will use the word “vehicle” and cognates to refer to motor vehicles, such as cars, buses and lorries.

My description does not purport to conform to the technical description of Table 2.1 of the NTA Cycle Design Manual 2023: Remote Cycleway/

Greenway; Standard cycle track (incl. two-way tracks); Stepped cycle track; Protected Cycle Lane; Mandatory Cycle Lane. These are described and

illustrated at §§2.4 and 4.2 of the NTA Cycle Design Manual 2023.

17 NTA Cycle Design Manual 2023 p18.

The issue was not in any reality addressed at trial.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

impossible – though Mr Foran is correct in insisting that easy recourse to such an observation cannot justify mediocrity in the provision of cycle infrastructure. But insistence on best practice in all circumstances ignores that trade-offs and compromises between desiderata, between constraints and between desiderata and constraints, will often be required. The very concept of best practice implies that a lesser practice may nonetheless be necessary, good and/or acceptable in particular circumstances.

13. In light of the foregoing and in a general sense, it can also be said that decisions as to what type, or combination of types, of cycle lane to provide in a given location and where precisely to provide them, and how to manage their users’ inevitable interactions with other traffic at such as junctions and road crossings, will all but invariably require expert, evaluative, multifactorial judgements, compromises and conclusions with which others may reasonably disagree. Without attempting a complete list, the relevant factors, interacting and often countervailing, will include such as law and policy in favour of active travel, in favour of public transport and in favour of modal shift to both, design guidance and standards, safety, requirements of other road users – pedestrian and vehicular, foreseen traffic levels and demand of all kinds, traffic composition as between different vehicle types, proper management of various forms of traffic (including cyclists), availability of alternative routes for one or more type or types of traffic (including cyclists), behavioural science, ergonomics and efficiency, topographical and other technical/engineering constraints, cost, availability of space - including land ownership and CPO powers, and other land uses – actual and desirable.

14. While such judgements and conclusions must be lawful and may be quashed at law if not, ceteris paribus and clearly in light of the foregoing recital of relevant factors, roads, including cycle infrastructure, should not be designed by lawyers – even judges. As counsel for Glenveagh put it of the lawyers present at trial, “engineers and traffic experts we are not”. In my view and the law provides that roads should be designed by expert design teams in consultation with stakeholders and the public and subject to the approval of the expert public bodies designated by law for the task. Courts may upset those designs only where the law empowers them to do so.

ROLE OF PRIVATE DEVELOPERS

15. Glenveagh is a private developer – not a roads authority or a national school. There are many respects in which planning and environmental law imposes legitimately positive obligations on private developers for the common good. And planning permissions and other licenses may certainly be refused by reason of their foreseen negative effects – on-site and/or off-site. Existing problems of many kinds may legitimately inhibit private development – for example local infrastructure deficits, including over-trafficked roads. A developer at risk of refusal of permission may be very prudent to propose relevant solutions. But it seems to me useful to bear in mind generally in this case that, these circumstances apart and though it may attempt to resolve them and, at risk of refusal of permission, would be unwise to exacerbate them, it is not Glenveagh’s legal or planning burden to resolve existing local problems off-site. For example, it is not responsible for, or for resolving, the existing congestion on local roads at school drop-off and collection times.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

SITE & ENVIRONS

16. The Site is about 3.1 km west of Galway City Centre. Its area is 2.5ha (excluding the existing underground void of 0.53 hectares. The surrounding area is characterised by the residential suburb of Knocknacarra - with residential neighbourhoods to the east and southeast. To the west is the Gateway Retail Park - the primary district retail centre serving the surrounding area. To the north is the primary school Gaelscoil Mhic Amhlaigh – the “School”.19

Figure 1 Site, Proposed Development and Proposed Road Layout20

19 Inspector’s report 13 March 2024 §1.

Extract from drawing 180191 -1 -04-X-XXX-DR-D B FL-CE-1201 revision P03 dated 23/08/23 and included in Glenveagh’s RRfI.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

17. The following observations may be made of Figure 1 above:

a. It reflects the position as adjusted by the RRfI.

b. The Proposed Development Site is outlined in red.21 The 7 proposed apartment blocks are depicted as Blocks A1 and A2 in the north of the Site and as Blocks B1, B2, B3, B4 and B5 in the southern part.

c. The Retail Park Road runs roughly north/south on the western boundary of the Site and beyond it lies the Gateway Retail Park, of which the car park is depicted. The Retail Park Road running south from the Retail Park Roundabout curves west around the south of the Retail Park and links to Bóthar Stiofáin – which runs north-east/south-west along the western boundary of the Retail Park.

d. The Gort Na Bro Road lies on the eastern boundary of the Site and beyond it to the east is the Gort Na Bro housing estate.

e. The Western Distributor Road (WDR) lies south of the Site.

f. South-east of the Site, at the junction of the WDR and the Gort Na Bro Road, is the Gort na Bro/WDR Roundabout.

g. At present, the Retail Park Link Road runs from a 5th arm in the north-west of the Gort na Bro/WDR Roundabout, north-west across the Site, to the Retail Park Roundabout.

h. As proposed, the Retail Park Link Road will be relocated north to the line depicted, for about 100m, between the Retail Park Roundabout and a new junction (the “New Gort na Bro Junction”) with the Gort na Bro Road opposite the entry to the Gort Na Bro housing estate. The Gort na Bro/WDR Roundabout will become, though perhaps temporarily,22 a 4-arm roundabout.

i. The School is visible as a triangular building on the Site’s northern boundary.

j. The red line depicting the Proposed Development Site encloses, by consent of the Council, significant elements of existing and intended public road – essentially the northwestern quadrant of the Gort na Bro/WDR Roundabout, Gort na Bro Road north of that roundabout, the Retail Park Link Road across and into the entrance to the Gort Na Bro housing estate, stretches of the Retail Park Road north and south of its roundabout and the eastern third of the Retail Park Roundabout. The inclusion of these areas is to facilitate works by Glenveagh on the local road layout – including by way of provision of active travel infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists.

k. Cycle lanes to be provided by Glenveagh as part of the Proposed Development are depicted in orange.

They are connected, typically at roundabouts and junctions, by strips depicted in light yellow, which will be shared by cyclists and pedestrians. Mr Foran criticises these shared strips.

21 Due to an error in the map the red line is missing on a short stretch from the Gort na Bro/WRD north into Gort na Bro road but the correction is

obvious and nothing turns on the error.

See below.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

l. A Toucan crossing23 is proposed on the western arm of the proposed new signalised junction on Gort na Bró Road to facilitate north/south movements along the proposed two-way cycle track on Gort na Bró Road and connection to the two-way cycle track on the new Link Road. Mr Foran criticises this Toucan crossing.

m. Notably, the cycle lanes on the Retail Park Link Road and on the Gort na Bro Road are two-way and on one side of the road only. It is fair to say that these cycle lanes are the primary focus of Mr Foran’s objection to the design of the Proposed Development. He says they should be one-way cycle lanes on either side of the roads in question. That is the heart of the case.

n. The Commission is considering an application by the Council for approval of a proposed national road - the N6 Galway City Ring Road Scheme (“N6 GCRR Scheme”) - some distance north of the Site.24 ▪ That Scheme envisages traffic using the Gort Na Bro Road, as it runs north from the Site, to feed and access the N6 GCRR. It also envisages a new link road from the Retail Park Roundabout to the Gort na Bro Road on the route to be, as matters have transpired, provided by the Proposed Development. To that end, the N6 GCRR Scheme envisages25 road upgrades in the vicinity of the Site, and a CPO accordingly, encompassing, inter alia, the WRD, the Gort na Bro/WRD Roundabout, Gort na Bro Road, the Retail Park Link Road and the Retail Park Roundabout. The CPO boundary typically runs parallel to but slightly outside (and hence includes slightly more land than) the red line Site Boundary. Not least, the N6 GCRR Scheme envisages replacing the Gort na Bro/WRD Roundabout by a crossroads.26 ▪ However, and apparently as the design of the N6 GCRR dates back to 2018, the N6 GCRR Scheme does not include active travel infrastructure – notably, cycle lanes – on the Gort na Bro Road. The Proposed Development will, Glenveagh asserts, remedy this deficiency at least in part.

o. The Council’s RfI and Glenveagh’s RRfI were appreciably concerned with whether the Proposed Development, in its road upgrade elements, was consistent with the N6 GCRR Scheme and the RRfI adjusted the Proposed Development accordingly. Glenveagh deposes that its “design team engaged with the Council, including the N6 GCCRR design team, to ensure that the Proposed Development appropriately integrates and aligns with the future proposed road network upgrades in the wider area.”27 The RRfI also proposed 558 bike parking spaces.

p. Ultimately, I did not understand Mr Foran to dispute that the Proposed Development, in its road upgrade elements, is consistent with the N6 GCRR Scheme. But he says

23 A Toucan crossing is a signal-controlled road crossing shared by pedestrians and cyclists – who can cross the road together. “Toucan" is a play on

words - "two can" cross at the same time.

24 The N6 GCRR is a proposed 18km orbital road (part motorway – at its eastern end) to the north of Galway City, from a new junction with the R336 at

the western side of Bearna to

the existing N6 to the east of Galway City at Coolagh, Briarhill. In separate judicial review proceedings, 2022/93 JR, the N6 GCRR Scheme was quashed

and remitted to the Commission.

Amongst the exhibits is drawing 180191-1-04-X-XXX-SK-DBFL-CE-1204 Revision P01 - N6 GCRR Scheme Overlay, overlaying the N6 GCRR Scheme on

the Proposed Development. I have had regard to it but as it is highly complex – one might say cluttered, though inevitably so – I consider that it would

not assist clarity to include an extract in this judgment.

26 Hence my recording above that the 4-arm roundabout may be temporary.

Affidavit of Noel Gorman sworn 3 November 2025, §21.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

▪ that is beside his point, given the N6 GCRR Scheme does not provide for cycle lanes in the vicinity of the Site.

▪ that, in his opinion, the N6 GCRR Scheme does not represent a constraint on the provision of what he considers to be proper cycle infrastructure.

IMPUGNED DECISION

18. The essentials of the Impugned Decision are described above. Here I record that the Commission’s order records that in coming to its decision, it had regard to, inter alia,

(a) the location of the site in the established urban area of Galway,

(b) the policies and objectives of the Galway City Development Plan 2023-2029,

(c) Housing for All, A New Housing Plan for Ireland (2021),

(d) Sustainable Residential Development and Compact Settlements, Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2024)

(g) Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets (DMURS) (2013).

(i) the Climate Action Plan 2023,

(j) the policies and objectives set out in the National Planning Framework,

(l) the EIAR28 submitted with the application,

(m) nature, scale and design of the proposed development (as amended),

(q) submissions and observations received, and

(r) report of the Inspector.

19. The Commission’s order also records its completion of an EIA of the Proposed Development, taking into account:

(a) the nature, scale, location and extent of the proposed development,

(b) the EIAR and associated documentation submitted with the application,

(c) the submissions from the planning authority, the observers and the prescribed bodies

(d) the Inspector’s report.

In completing its EIA, the Commission agreed with and adopted its Inspector’s examination and assessment of the relevant information and the Inspector’s reasoned conclusions.

20. As to proper planning and sustainable development, the Commission’s order also records its

conclusion, inter alia, that the Proposed Development would be “acceptable in terms of traffic and pedestrian safety and convenience”.29 For the avoidance of doubt, I should say that I read this conclusion as including cycle traffic in its reference to traffic and as including the safety and convenience of cycle traffic.

28 Environmental Impact Assessment Report.

Commission’s Order (ABP-318687-23) dated 10 April 2024.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

21. Condition 7 of the Impugned Decision requires, inter alia, that

“The developer shall comply with all requirements of the planning authority in relation to roads, access, lighting and parking arrangements, ….. In particular:

(a) The roads and traffic arrangements serving the site (including sightlines, footpath connections and signage) shall be in accordance with the detailed requirements of the planning authority for such works and shall be carried out at the developer’s expense.

(i) The roads layout shall comply with the requirements of the Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, in particular carriageway widths, corner radii and pedestrian crossings.

GROUNDS ABANDONED - DMURS & SUSTAINABLE MOBILITY POLICY 2002 - & GROUNDS REMAINING

ABANDONED

22. Ground 3 of the Amended Statement of Grounds sought to have the “DMURS”30 quashed. The Amended Statement of Grounds impugned DMURS as:

• encouraging hostile and inconvenient road conditions for cyclists by approving road designs that push them into potential conflict with motor vehicles.

• incompatible with the National Cycle Policy Framework 2009 – 2022 and with the intent of the Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021 and the associated Climate Action Plans.

23. Ground 3 is abandoned and so it does not remain open to Mr Foran to impugn DMURS, Condition 7 of the Impugned Decision31 or the Impugned Decision generally on the basis of alleged deficiency in DMURS. I must assume the validity of DMURS and that Glenveagh will comply with it on foot of Condition 7. If it doesn’t, that will be an enforcement matter for the Council to address.

24. Mr Foran describes the National Cycle Policy Framework 2009 – 2020 as the “roadmap for restoring cycling” which described “the interventions needed and the manner of approach to infrastructure development that would be needed if cycling access was to be restored to Irish towns and cities.”32 The Sustainable Mobility Policy 2022 replaced the 2009 Framework in terms which, Mr Foran pleads, failed to address many matters which the Framework had addressed33 and “had the objective effect of removing the formal recognition by the state of various infrastructural issues faced by cyclists and which must be addressed if the ambitions of the Climate Action Plan 2021 are to be delivered”,34 thus “creating a large

The Department of Transport Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets, 2019.

31 Set out above.

32 Amended Statement of Grounds §68.

33 Amended Statement of Grounds §67.

Amended Statement of Grounds §70.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

policy gap at a time of unprecedented spending on active travel.” Mr Foran pleads that the Sustainable Mobility Policy 2022, specifically as an inadequate replacement for the 2009 Framework, was a basis on which the Council’s members voted against proposals to include objectives in the City Development Plan for addressing cycling-unfriendly traffic calming and the negative impacts of narrow traffic lanes for cycling access to the city. So, in his view, the Sustainable Mobility Policy 2022 objectively became a means for the Council to avoid commitments to improving cycling access.35

25. Ground 4 of the Amended Statement of Grounds sought to have the Sustainable Mobility Policy 2022 quashed. But Ground 4 has also been abandoned and so it does not remain open to Mr Foran to impugn the Sustainable Mobility Policy 2022 or to impugn the Impugned Decision generally on the basis of alleged deficiency in the Sustainable Mobility Policy 2022.

26. The abandoned grounds were the subject of consent orders which need not be detailed here.

REMAINING

27. Only Grounds 1 and 2 remain in the case.

• Ground 1 alleges the Commission’s failure, contrary to s.28(1) PDA 2000,36 to have regard to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines, and/or to give reasons for not following them as to addressing in development proposals, “potential negative impacts arising from existing or planned national roads.”

• Ground 2 alleges inconsistency of the Impugned Decision with the Climate Act 2021 and the Climate Action Plans and/or the Commission’s failure to give reasons for not addressing those plans – essentially as to prioritising public transport and active travel.

SOME PRINCIPLES OF JUDICIAL REVIEW

REILLY

28. My attention has been drawn to a recent decision of Reilly37 in which some basic principles of the law of judicial review were helpfully collected. If I may presume some minor editing and to reconfigure the layout somewhat,38 certain principles listed in Reilly and arguably relevant to the present case are as follows:

35 Amended Statement of Grounds §71.

36 Planning And Development Act 2000 as amended.

37 Reilly v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Lark Finance [2025] IEHC 659.

Including footnoting the authorities listed by Humphreys J.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

a. Judicial review is concerned with the legality, not the merits, of the impugned decision.39 It is not an appeal on the merits and it is not for the court to substitute its view of those merits for that of the

decision-taker. It is not difficult to dress up an argument as a point of law when in truth it is no more than an attack upon factual conclusions.40 b. The weight to be given, in making an evaluative judgement, to any consideration or evidence is quintessentially a matter for the administrative decision-maker – not the court. Generally, evaluative judgements involving significant planning judgement, and not tainted by other procedural, legal or factual errors, are reviewable as to merit only for irrationality.41 As it was put in Grassridge, “Short of irrationality of the decision, merits-based challenges are impermissible in judicial review.”42 While the precise boundaries and articulation of the doctrine of irrationality are evolving,43 it is clear that Keegan44 is good law to the effect that, to be irrational, an impugned decision must be “fundamentally at variance with reason and common sense”. For that to be the case, “something overwhelming” is required – see for example, Keegan and Littondale.45 As was said in St Audoen’s,46 the threshold is “extremely high and is almost never met in practice”. As strikingly stated in Holohan47 and oftrepeated since, the court can’t quash for irrationality if merely it considers that, as to merit, the

decision is “simply wrong (or even clearly wrong)”.

c. Judicial review is not, and should not be regarded as, politics by another means. The court must keep the separation of powers firmly in mind and respect the general principle that policy choices and administrative decisions are, unless they are illegal, for other branches of government. For a court to stray into policy fundamentally distorts the process because the administrator is often concerned with broad considerations of the public interest whereas the judge tends to focus on the claims of the parties to the case before him.48

Save in the case of irrationality – see below.

40 Sweeney v Fahy [2014] IESC 50 §3.8-3.15; State (Keegan) v Stardust Compensation Tribunal [1986] I.R. 642 at p. 654 ; Meadows v Minister for Justice,

Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3, [2010] 2 I.R. 701 at p. 743; R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 AC 663 §47 Stapleton v An Bord

Pleanála & Savona [2025] IEHC 510; Moran v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 510 §11. Monkstown Road Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála [2022]

IEHC 319 (§57 et seq). Grassridge Limited v Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2024] IEHC 669 (§20 et seq); Jones v South Dublin County Council

[2024] IEHC 301 (§185); and Voyage Property v Limerick City & County Council, Minister for Housing & OPR [2025] IEHC 696 §169.

41 Tesco Stores Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment [1995] 1 WLR 759 (HL), 780; Baby O v Minister for Justice [2002] IESC 44, [2002] 2 I.R.

169, [2003] 1 I.L.R.M. 24; M.E. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2008] IEHC 192 §27; Heathrow Airport Ltd [2020] UKSC 52, [2021] 2 All E.R. 967, [2021]

P.T.S.R. 190, [2020] 12 WLUK 212; Moran v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 510 §12. Sherwin v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IESC 13; Graymount House Action

Group v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 327, Graymount House Action Group v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IESCDET 22.

42 Grassridge Limited v Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2024] IEHC 669 §20.

43 See for example Jennings v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 14, §15 et seq.

44 The State (Keegan) v Stardust Compensation Tribunal [1986] IR 642.

45 Littondale Ltd v Wicklow County Council [1996] 2 ILRM 519.

46 The Board of Management of St. Audoen’s National School v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 453.

47 Holohan v An Bord Pleanála [2017] IEHC 268. Cited, inter alia, in Jennings & O’Connor v An Bord Pleanála & Colbeam 2023 IEHC 14; Coyne v An Bord

Pleanála [2023] IEHC 412; Fernleigh v ABP & Ironborn [2023] IEHC 525; Duffy v ABP & McDonagh [2024] IEHC 558; Grassridge v Dún Laoghaire

Rathdown County Council [2024] IEHC 669; Ryan v ABP & Analog [2025] IEHC 111, Concerned Residents of Coolkill v An Bord Pleanála & Midsal Homes

[2025] IEHC 265.

48 R (Hoareau and Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2019] EWHC 221 (Admin), [2019] 1 W.L.R. 4105 at [326], Sinnott

v Minister for Education [2001] IESC 63, [2001] 2 I.R. 545; T.D. v Minister for Education [2001] IESC 101, [2001] 4 I.R. 259; B. v Child & Family Agency &

Ors. [2025] IESC 2 (Unreported, Supreme Court, Hogan J., 27 January 2025), §62; De Blacam, Judicial Review, 2nd ed, p. 97.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

d. If such a reading is reasonably available, a decision must be read in a way that makes sense rather than nonsense - as valid not invalid. For example, “unhelpful” statements should not be read as inconsistent with statutory factors if the decision can nonetheless be read as valid.49 e. A decision must be read in the round, in context and not placing undue weight on semantic quibbles in respect of micro-sub-elements of it. A decision should not be read solely from an applicant’s point of view (an impossible standard), but should be read from the presumption of its being valid rather than invalid where possible. One must stand back and ask what the decision is fundamentally saying.50

f. Legalistic over-parsing or micro-analysis of decisions, or of legal instruments generally, is inappropriate. So is semantic querulousness.51 It is not desirable that a decision be parsed and analysed word for word in order to discern some possible infelicity in the choice of words or phrases used unless the matters relied upon have been clearly misunderstood or mis-stated by the decisionmaker. The question is whether, when the decision is considered as a whole, there was no reasonable basis for it. Mere technicalities are not normally a proper or proportionate basis for the grant of relief.52

g. Judicial review is not an exercise in pointless formalism. It is not a game where the respondents can score as many goals as they like, but if the applicant scores one goal, the game is over. The court must make a balanced and reasonable assessment of the overall sustainability of a decision, even if there is an argument that limited parts of it are sub-optimal.53 h. It is not for the applicant to dictate the procedures to be adopted (as long as they are fair) or the form of a decision.54

49 M.R. (Bangladesh) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal [2020] IEHC 41, [2020] 1 JIC; Rostas v DPP [2021] IEHC 60 §50; St. Margaret’s Recycling v

An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 94 Mulloy v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 86§178 , O’Donnell v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 381; Save Roscam Peninsula

CLG v An Bord Pleanála (No. 6) [2024] IEHC 335 §64; E.M. v Minister for Justice and Equality [2024] IESC 3; Friends of Killymooney Lough v An Coimisiún

Pleanála [2025] IEHC 407; Moran An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 510 §13.

50 O.A.A. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Anor. [2007] IEHC 169, [2007] 2 JIC 0904; J.B.R. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Ors. [2007] IEHC

288, [2007] 7 JIC 3110; I.R. v Minister for Justice [2009] IEHC 510, [2015] 4 I.R. 144 at p. 152; M.R. (Bangladesh) v International Protection Appeals

Tribunal [2020] IEHC 41, [2020] 1 JIC 2903 (§6. O’Donnell & Ors. v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 381 §54; St. Margaret’s Recycling v An Bord Pleanála

[2024] IEHC 94 §57; Moran v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 510 §13.

51 Querulousness is the word used in the relevant caselaw. It means the quality of being habitually complaining, fault-finding, or peevish.

52 R (Blewett) v Derbyshire County Council [2003] EWHC 2775 (Admin), [2004] Env L.R. 29 §41; R. (Friends of the Earth Ltd and others) v Heathrow Airport

Ltd [2020] UKSC 52, [2021] 2 All E.R. 967, [2021] P.T.S.R. 190, [2020] 12 WLUK 212;O’Sullivan v HSE [2023] IESC 11 §37. G.T. v Minister for Justice, Equality

and Law Reform [2007] IEHC 287, [2007] 7 JIC 2708 §3: See also A.I.M.Z. v Refugee Applications Commission & Ors. [2008] IEHC 420, [2008] 11 JIC 0705

§24 S.A. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal & Anor. [2009] IEHC 383, [2010] 7 JIC 2803 §13; Obuseh v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Ors. [2010]

IEHC 93, [2010] 1 JIC 1404 §21; Bond v Minister for Justice & Ors. [2012] IEHC 454, [2012] 11 JIC 0903 (§24; P.M. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2014] IEHC

497, [2014] 10 JIC 0204 §59; O.S. v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2015] IEHC 839, 2015 WJSC-HC 25494, [2015] 12 JIC 1505 §59; X.E. v International

Protection Appeals Tribunal [2018] IEHC 402, [2018] 7 JIC 0405; B.D.C. (Nigeria) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal [2018] IEHC 460, [2018] 7 JIC

2006 §7; Moran v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 510 §13; Moore v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2016] IESC 70, [2017] 3 I.R. 42, [2017] 2 I.L.R.M.

21 §4.8 (distinguishing a substance point from “a technicality”); Save Cork City Community Association CLG v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IESC 52, [2024] 1

I.R. 205 at 60, (without needing to decide the point) that there was “a great deal of force” in the submission that it would be disproportionate to quash a

decision on the basis of a “technical procedural error”. Watchhouse Cross Shopping Centre v An Coimisiún Pleanála [2025] IEHC 520.

53 Okunade v Minister for Justice [2018] IESC 56, [2018] 11 JIC 1401 §21. M.R. (Bangladesh) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal [2020] IEHC 41,

[2020] 1 JIC 2903 §21.

A.B. v Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IECA 48, [2016] 2 JIC 2602, 2016 WJSC CA 1525 §43.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

i. With defined and limited exceptions, in judicial review the onus of proof is on the applicant at all times – i.e. administrative decisions are rebuttably presumed valid.55 A notable exception is that where error is shown, the onus of showing it harmless passes to those defending the impugned

decision.56

j. In a challenge to an environmental assessment, the onus of proof lies on the applicant to show, by evidence (normally expert evidence), or by demonstrating a flaw on face of material, that AA/environmental impact assessment (EIA) was defective, or that there were factual circumstances requiring a decision-taker to consider any other autonomous obligation.57 The applicant in judicial review bears the onus of proof of establishing scientific and/or factual shortcomings in an EIA or AA.58Thus, apart from (i) failure to consider something that the decision-taker was autonomously required to consider, (ii) patent flaw on the face of the materials, or (iii) other legal error, inadequate consideration or failure to dispel scientific doubt must be established by admissible, normally expert, evidence in the judicial review showing either that reasonable doubt was created by the material before the decision-taker at the time (albeit not limited to what was adduced by the applicant specifically), or that such material, even if uncontradicted, would on its face have created doubt in the mind of a reasonable expert.59

k. The onus of proof of inadequacy of an impugned decision cannot be discharged by mere assertion.60 If demonstration of error depends on expert opinion, that onus of demonstration cannot be discharged by non-expert opinion – which is generally inadmissible in evidence on standard evidential principles.61

l. A conflict of admissible evidence is, absent cross-examination, generally resolved against the party bearing the onus of proof on the issue on which the conflicting evidence is decisive.62 But that is a general, not an invariable, principle: not all averments are equally credible and a court need not disregard internal or evident problems, inherent defects or a failure to explain relevant matters clearly

55 Meadows v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IESC 3, [2010] 2 I.R. 701 at p. 743; Cork County Council v Minister for Housing, Local

Government and Heritage (No. 1) [2021] IEHC 683 §57; Monkstown Road Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IEHC 318 (Unreported, High

Court, 31 May 2022) §96,; Moran v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 510 §14; In re Comhaltas Ceoltóirí Éireann (Unreported, High Court, 5 December

1977) Campus Oil v Minister for Industry and Energy (No. 2) [1983] I.R. 88 at 102; Grassridge v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2024] IEHC 669

§22; Moran v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 510 §15. O’Doherty and Waters v Minister for Health [2022] IESC 32, [2023] 2 I.R. 488, [2022] 1 I.L.R.M.

421 §116 is authority that the onus of proof of the disproportionality of interference with a constitutional right remains on the applicant for judicial

review – though that issue does not arise in the present case.

56 H.A. v Minister for Justice [2022] IECA 166, [2022] 7 JIC 2201 §48.

57 R v Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 §§36-38, affirmed 2010 BCCA 391, 2010 D.T.C 5141; Reid v An Bord Pleanála (No. 1) [2021] IEHC 230, [2021] 4 JIC 1204

§19; An Taisce v an Bord Pleanála & Ors. [2022] IESC 8, [2022] 2 I.R. 173, [2022] 1 I.L.R.M. 281 Carrownagowan Concern Group v An Bord Pleanála

[2024] IEHC 300 §191(v) (leave to appeal refused in Carrownagowan Concern Group v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IESCDET 9; Salmon Watch Ireland, Inland

Fisheries Ireland, Sweetman & Ors. v Aquaculture Licences Appeals Board & Ors. [2024] IEHC 421 §1097; Nagle View Turbine Aware Group v An Bord

Pleanála [2024] IEHC 603 §115; Minoa Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 704 §333; Ó Murthuile v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 498 §55.

58 Nagle View Turbine Aware Group v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 603, [2025] IESCDET 41, Eco Advocacy v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IESCDET 74,

O’Doherty and Waters v Minister for Health [2022] IESC 32, [2023] 2 I.R. 488, [2022] 1 I.L.R.M. 421, 100 Meter Tall Group v An Bord Pleanála [2025]

IESCDET 85. See also Eco Advocacy CLG v An Bord Pleanála & Statkraft [2025] IEHC 15 §95; Concerned Residents of Coolkill v An Bord Pleanála & Midsal

Homes [2025] IEHC 265 §309.

59 An Taisce v An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2021] IEHC 422, [2021] 7 JIC §7 and §8; Carrownagowan Concern Group v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 300

§191(v), leave to appeal refused: Carrownagowan Concern Group v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IESCDET 9; Kennedy v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC §105;

Roache v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 311 at §117; Kennedy v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 570 §73; Ryanair DAC v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 74

§64 et seq.; analogously, Donegal County Council v Planree [2024] IECA 300 §141; Massey v An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2025] IEHC 206.

60 Joyce Kemper v An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 601, [2020] 11 JIC 2402 §9; Murphy v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 59 §14. Oxigen Environmental

Unlimited Company v An Coimisiún Pleanála [2025] IEHC 632 (§40 et seq).

61 Massey v An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2025] IEHC 206.

RAS Medical Ltd v Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland [2019] IESC 4, [2019] 1 I.R. 63, [2019] 2 I.L.R.M. 273.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

within that party’s responsibility. The court, as finder of fact, is not constrained to accept the only account available and it need not uncritically or automatically accept expert evidence absent crossexamination.63

m. Subject to exceptions,64 it is basic that in general, the legality of a decision is viewed through the lens of the material before the decision-taker at the time of the decision, and not with the benefit of further evidence in hindsight.65

n. Generally, a party which has made a submission in the planning process can’t make a contrary submission in judicial review.66 However, I suggest that there may be limits to this prohibition given the decision of Hardiman J in Ashbourne Holdings67 that, even where imposed at the instance of the planning applicant, some planning conditions may be too pernicious to be upheld.

o. A decision should not be quashed for error (including in application of EU law) if the error was harmless and did not materially affect the result.68 Marginal, merely ancillary, non-central regard to an irrelevant consideration may not hair-trigger certiorari.69 The court can consider evidence (including by the developer) that the error was harmless.70 To deem an error harmless, the court should be able, on considering all relevant evidence,71 to exclude a reasonable possibility that the error would have made a difference to the actual outcome. Absolute certainty to that effect is not required – such a requirement would be unworkable.

p. If even harmful error is established, whether to grant relief and what relief to grant remains discretionary. Reilly lists the relevant principles at length. I will not repeat them here.

63 See Toole v The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage [2023] IEHC 378 §57 et seq. Koulibaly v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law

Reform [2004] IESC 50, [2004] 7 JIC 2906,Doorly v Corrigan [2022] IECA 6 §137 ,DPP v Barnes [2006] IECCA 165, [2007] 3 I.R. 130, [2007] 1 I.L.R.M. 350

§95,Tesco Ireland Limited v Stateline Transport Limited [2024] IECA 46.

Reid v An Bord Pleanála (No. 1) [2021] IEHC 230

65 I.S.O.F. v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2010] IEHC 457; Jahangir v Minister for Justice and Equality [2018] IEHC 37, [2018] 2 JIC 0102;

M.H. (Bangladesh) v Refugee Appeals Tribunal [2018] IEHC 496, [2018] 6 JIC 2607; B.D. (Bhutan and Nepal) v Minister for Justice and Equality [2018]

IEHC 461, [2018] 7 JIC; A.J.A. (Nigeria) v International Protection Appeals Tribunal [2018] IEHC 671, [2018] 11 JIC 1403; O.A. (Nigeria) v International

Protection Appeals Tribunal [2018] IEHC 661, [2018] 11 JIC 2003; De Souza v Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IEHC 440, [2019] 6 JIC 0407;

Ratushnyak v Minister for Justice and Equality [2019] IEHC 619 §35 to 36; J.W. v Minister for Justice and Equality [2020] IEHC 500, [2020] 10 JIC; Reid v

An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 230, [2021] 4 JIC 1204;Clonres CLG v An Bord Pleanála & Ors. [2021] IEHC 303, [2021] 5 JIC 0706 §87; Google v Data

Protection Commission [2024] IEHC 577; Moran v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 510 §16; Eglington Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála [2025]

IEHC 209 §9. North Great Georges Street Preservation Society v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 241.

66 Clifford v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 459 §52(ii).

67 Ashbourne Holdings v An Bord Pleanála & Cork County Council [2003] 2 IR 114 SC, pp 137 et seq

68 Carrownagowan Concern Group v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IESCDET §9; Massey v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IESCDET 126 §12. See also Walton v

Scottish Ministers [2012] UKSC 44, [2013] P.T.S.R. 51; Gemeinde Altrip and Others v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, C-72/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:712; R (Champion) v

North Norfolk District Council [2015] UKSC 52, [2015] 1 W.L.R. 3710; Canterbury City Council v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local

Government [2019] EWHC 1211 (Admin.), [2019] 5 W.L.U.K. 225; Sliabh Luachra Against Ballydesmond Windfarm Committee v An Bord Pleanála [2019]

IEHC 888, [2019] 12 JIC 2017; R. (Hudson) v Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council [2021] EWCA Civ 592, [2021] 1 W.L.R. 5588; UH v An tAire

Talmhaíochta Bia agus Mara and Others, C-64/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:14 opinion of Bobek AG; Reid v An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2021] IEHC 362, [2021] 10

JIC 0606 §53; Heather Hill Management Company CLG v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IEHC 146, [2022] 3 JIC 1603 §257 et seq. and §326(d) and (e);

Concerned Residents of Treascon and Clondoolusk v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IEHC 700, [2022] 12 JIC 1609 §80; Toole v Minister for Housing (No. 6)

[2023] IEHC 592, [2023] 10 JIC 3102 §39; Eco Advocacy v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC; Massey v An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2025] IEHC 206. Colbeam v

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2025] IEHC 437 (Unreported, High Court, 5 August 2025) §125.

Colbeam v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2025] IEHC 437 §125.

70 Gemeinde Altrip and Others v Land Rheinland-Pfalz, C-72/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:712; Carrownagowan Concern Group v An Bord Pleanála [2025]

IESCDET 9. R. (Champion) v North Norfolk District Council [2015] UKSC 52, [2015] 1 W.L.R. 3170; Canterbury City Council v Secretary of State for

Housing Communities and Local Government [2019] EWHC 1211 (Admin.), [2019] 5 W.L.U.K. 225.

Carrownagowan Concern Group v An Bord Pleanála (No. 3) [2024] IEHC 549 §31.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

29. Reilly72 also identified “a foundational concept” as to the relevancy principle that a decisionmaker must or may (depending on circumstance) consider relevant materials and must ignore irrelevant materials.73 Reilly states that

“… consideration by a decision-taker involves essentially three elements, probably best categorised as follows:

(i) matters that must be considered either autonomously – normally finite and well identified – or only if they are raised, such as submissions;

(ii) matters that must not be considered; and

(iii) an infinite range of other matters which a decision-taker may consider if she wants to but does not have to.”74

JUDICIAL REVIEW IS NOT APPEAL - THE COMMISSION IS EXPERT – THE COURT IS NOT

30. I add the general observations in Dublin Cycling Campaign and ETI that

“…. the competent authority… is the Board and these judicial review proceedings are in no sense an appeal from the decision of the Board on that issue. In contrast to the court, the Board is a body with significant expertise and experience of carrying out such assessments...” 75

“… “the court will acknowledge and respect the expert knowledge and expertise of the authority entrusted by law to make the decision” … it must also be remembered...[t]he Board is expert: the court is not…”76

REASONS - RWWA

31. RWWA,77 explicitly inexhaustively, summarises the law as to the adequacy of reasons given by administrative decisionmakers for impugned decisions. That summary, albeit edited, expanded and reordered somewhat, suffices for present purposes. Humphreys J states:78

72 §67.

73 In P & F Sharpe v Dublin City & County Manager [1989] IR 701. Finlay P stated in imperative terms: “the decision-making authority must have regard

to all relevant and legitimate factors which are before it and must disregard any irrelevant or illegitimate factor which might be advanced.” See also

Moules, Environmental Judicial Review, Oxford, 2011, p204, Killegland Estates v Meath County Council & Giltinane [2022] IEHC 393 §198. Colbeam v

Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2025] IEHC 437, Voyage Property v Limerick City & County Council, Minister for Housing & OPR [2025] IEHC

696.

74 Citing RRWA - Rural Residents Wind Aware v An Coimisiún Pleanála (I) [2025] IEHC 600 §76.

75 Dublin Cycling Campaign CLG v An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 587 §104.

Environmental Trust Ireland v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IEHC 540, §277. See also Sliabh Luachra Against Ballydesmond Windfarm Committee v An Bord

Pleanála [2019] IEHC 888 (§100); Minoa Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 704 (§278 et seq); Heather Hill v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IEHC 146 (§267);

and more generally Kenny v An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 290 (§90).

77 Rural Residents Wind Aware and Environmental Group v An Coimisiún Pleanála & White Hill Wind [2025] IEHC 600, [2025] 11 JIC 0603 (1/11/25)

To aid legibility, I have footnoted the cases cited in RRWA. I have edited some content.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

a. The requirement is to provide the main reasons on the main issues.79 That requirement is understood in terms of the “broad issues” in and “broad gist” of the impugned decision.80

It is not to derogate from the foregoing to add that ▪ adequacy of reasons is fundamental to trust in public administration – Balz.81 Public administration, especially quasi-judicial decision-making, being answerable to public confidence, it is important that “a party, in particular the losing party, should believe that his or her case was fairly ventilated and considered.” 82 ▪ One important function of the duty to give reasons is to impose “a very desirable discipline” so as to “concentrate the decision-maker’s mind on the right question”.83 ▪ reasons must state the “essential rationale” of the impugned decision, must “allow the applicant to understand in general terms why the decision was made”, must disclose that the tribunal has “directed its mind adequately to the issue before it”,84 and, in context, must be “adequate to the situation” considered as a question of substance not form and applying an element of common sense and practicality.85 And reasons must be “clear” and “cogent”

(which is to say, “persuasive” in the sense of capable of persuading) and “intelligible”/“comprehensible”.86 b. Certain issues are objectively main issues on which reasons must be given, given the nature of the process or decision at issue – for example, satisfaction of key statutory criteria for the decision or where the Commission disagrees with a council87 or with its own inspector on a point on which the

decision turns.88

c. It is for the decision-taker in the first instance to decide whether submissions of interested parties raise relevant and main issues.89 Failure to address such an issue raised in a submission can be challenged in the normal way.

79 Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 45; Balscadden Road SAA Residents Association Ltd. v An Bord Pleanála (No. 1) [2020]

IEHC 586, [2020] 11 JIC 2501; Atlantic Diamond v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 322; Grassridge v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2024] IEHC

669 §59; Pat O'Donnell v Dublin City Council [2024] IEHC 671 §129; Graymount House Action Group v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 327, [2025]

IESCDET 22; Morris v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IESCDET 25.

80 O'Keefe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 I.R. 39, [1992] I.L.R.M. 237 at p. 76; Faulkner v Minister for Industry and Commerce 1997 WJSC-SC 962, ( [1996]

12 JIC 1007 Unreported, Supreme Court, 10 December 1996.

81 Balz v An Bord Pleanála [2019] IESC 90; [2020] 1 I.L.R.M. 637

82 Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group v An Bord Pleanála & Shannon Homes [2022] IEHC 7; Defender Limited v HSBC France (formerly HSBC Institutional Trust

Services (Ireland) Limited [2020] IESC 37, [2021] 1 ILRM 1 §24; Balz v An Bord Pleanála [2019] IESC 90; [2020] 1 I.L.R.M. 637, Byrne v Fingal County

Council [2001] 4 IR 565.

83 R(Matson) v City of London [1979] 1 WLR 765; R(Dawson) v London Borough of Newham 26 HLR 747 – both cited in Fordham, Judicial Review

Handbook, 6th Ed’n §62.1.8.

84 Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group v An Bord Pleanála & Shannon Homes [2022] IEHC 7; Oates v Browne [2016] IESC 7.

85 Grassridge v Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2024] IEHC 669 §§55, 60, 61, Murphy v The Standards in Public Office Commission [2024] IEHC

374, FC v Mental Health Tribunal [2022] IECA 290. McEvoy v Preliminary Proceedings Committee [2022] IECA 174, Marques v Minister for Justice and

Equality [2019] IESC 16, Flynn v Medical Council [2012] 3 IR 236.

86 Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group v An Bord Pleanála & Shannon Homes [2022] IEHC 7 §272, citing Mulholland and Kinsella v An Bord Pleanála and

others. [2005] IEHC 306, Grealish v An Bord Pleanála [2007] 2 IR 536; Harten v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IEHC 40; Westminster City Council v Great

Portland Estates [1985] AC 661; Eco Advocacy CLG v An Bord Pleanála (C-721/21), [2024] Env L.R. 8 (2023) EU:C:2023:477 (Kokott AG); SWI, IFI,

Sweetman & Ors v ALAB [2024] IEHC 421 §978.

87 Sherwin v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 26, [2023] 1 JIC 2701.

88 Clonres CLG v An Bord Pleanála & Ors. [2021] IEHC 303.

Friends of the Irish Environment CLG & Anor. v Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage & Ors. [2025] IECA 128 § 148.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

d. There is no obligation to provide a discursive, narrative consideration or to “engage with”

submissions in such a sense, or to provide an issue-by-issue or submission-by-submission response.90

However, where the obligation lies, in a particular case, in the middle-ground along a spectrum between narrative, discursive essay and mere anodyne or box-ticking, will depend on the circumstances of that case. Reasons must be adequate to the circumstances.91 A “reasoned” decision “demonstrating” the decisionmaker’s reasoning process is required92 - “….. it will rarely be sufficient simply to indicate the factors taken into account and assert that, as a result of those factors, the

decision goes one way or the other. That does not enlighten any interested party as to why the decision went the way it did.”93 The court, and so, necessarily the lay reader, should not generally have to “join the dots” unless that is easy to do94 The obligation may, depending on circumstance require explanation of the rejection of an expert report.95 The Supreme Court has said that while the refined logical reasoning and expression of a judgment of a court is not required, it is necessary is that, on a broad and common sense approach, “a party, and in due course a reviewing court, can genuinely understand the reasoning process.”96

I respectfully draw attention to the words “in such a sense”. Insofar as a submission raises a main issue, a main reason, though not necessarily discursive, narrative or explicitly citing the submission, (submissions may be addressed collectively and thematically as to a particular main issue), must be given on that main issue. In that sense, engagement with submissions may be required97 – though the obligation is largely a subset of the requirement to give main reasons on the main issues. Depending on circumstance, it may suffice that the submissions have been summarised in a Chief Executive’s or Inspector’s report.98 However, Sliabh Luachra99 was to the effect that it is crucial that the points made in submissions be addressed and the point should not be lost that Balz and NECI100 record the law’s concern to “ensure” public trust that its voice is listened to in the decision-making process and that it is “fundamental” as 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”. NECI cites Balz as making “clear that a decision-maker must engage with significant submissions.” The concepts of relevance and significance in these extracts from Balz and NECI clearly must be understood as referring only to “main” issues for the decision of which main reasons must be given. They require that an impugned decision, by its reasoning, “truly” engage with the main issues as raised in such submissions.101 Simons J’s observation, citing Balz, that “The right to make submissions carries with it,

90 Oguekwe v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2008] IESC 25, [2008] 3 I.R. 795, per Denham J. referring to the lack of a need for a “micro

specific format” (at p. 819).

91 Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group v An Bord Pleanála & Shannon Homes [2022] IEHC 7; Crekav Trading GP Ltd v An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 400;

Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 45;

92 Rawson v Minister for Defence [2012] IESC 26 SC §6.9; Damer v An Bord Pleanála [2019] IEHC 505, Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2021]

2 I.R. 752, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 453, §5..

93 Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 45.

94 FN v Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 116.

95 Colbeam v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2025] IEHC 437 §31 and cases cited therein.

96 YY v Minister for Justice and Equality, [2018] 1 ILRM 109, §80.

97 Grassridge v Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2024] IEHC 669 §55, Sliabh Luachra Against Ballydesmond Windfarm Committee v An Bord

Pleanála [2019] IEHC 88.

Friends of the Irish Environment v Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Fingal County Council, OPR & DAA [2025] IECA 128.

99 Sliabh Luachra Against Ballydesmond Windfarm Committee v An Bord Pleanála [2019] IEHC 88.

100 Balz v An Bord Pleanála [2019] IESC 90; [2020] 1 I.L.R.M. 637; Náisiúnta Leictreach Contraitheoir Éireann (NECI) v Labour Court, [2021] IESC 36,

[2021] 2 ILRM 1. See also Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group v An Bord Pleanála & Shannon Homes [2022] IEHC 7.

NECI §157.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

as a corollary, a right to be informed of the reasons for which those submissions are not accepted”102 and that of MacDonald J that what is “crucial is that the points made in submissions should be addressed”103 are likewise to be understood as limited to main reasons on main issues - but they are nonetheless striking.104

While I find Rana105 somewhat difficult to reconcile, it ultimately does not appear to me that it detracts from this aspect of Balz and NECI. Rana related to the question whether a submission or an issue had been considered, failure of such consideration being the basis on which, in that case, inadequacy of reasons had been argued. It was held in Rana, and I of course accept as I must, that Balz was, in that respect, the application of, and not a reversal or variation of, the GK principle106 that a statement by a decision-maker that they have considered all materials before them suffices, without further evidence, unless there is some evidence-based reason to think that they did not. However, Rana did not cite or address the related but somewhat different question answered in Balz to the effect that, where a submission raises a “main issue”, as to that issue 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”.107 The requirement of explanation is important here – though, subject to the requirement of reasonable certainty of identification of reasons, the explanation need not be explicitly in response to the submission, and indeed may be implicit in substance also, as long as it provides the main reason(s) on the main issue in question. Though the court in Rana clearly had Balz in mind, Rana cast no doubt on this passage in Balz or that to similar effect in NECI. Ultimately, the decision in Rana was context-specific - that “the particular circumstances of these cases are so clear that there can be no doubt about the reasoning of the decision-makers, and no doubt about the justification for their decisions.” So, Rana comes at very least close to being a decision based on the principle that reasons need not be given for the obvious. Nor can this aspect of Balz and NECI be distinguished as limited in application to a context in which, as in Balz, the submission had been dismissed in limine as irrelevant: the requirement that relevant submissions be addressed and an explanation given why they are not accepted cannot logically be so limited as it addresses the content of reasons rather than the underlying obligation to give them.

e. Reasons may be found anywhere - for example in an inspector’s report.108 Thus, no additional requirement for explicit reasons is required where the Impugned Decision adopts a reasoned report (for example, of a chief executive or an inspector) which contains adequate reasons.109

I would add:

102 St Audoen’s National School v An Bord Pleanála & Merchants Quay Ireland [2021] IEHC 453.

103 Sliabh Luachra Against Ballydesmond Windfarm Committee v An Bord Pleanála [2019] IEHC 888 §38.

104 See also and generally on Reasons, Stapleton v ABP & Savona [2024] IEHC 3.

105 Rana & Ali v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 46 [2024] 10 JIC 1801.

106 G.K. v Minister for Justice [2002] 2 I.R. 418.

Emphasis added.

108 Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2021] 2 I.R. 752, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 453, §9.2.

Sherwin v An Bord Pleanála [2024] IESC 13 §129.

109 Killegland Estates v Meath County Council [2022] IEHC 393, [2022] 7 JIC 0106 §65; Pat O'Donnell v Dublin City Council [2024] IEHC 671 §144;

Shadowmill v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 157 §84.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

▪ Wherever they are found, the reasons must be capable of being clearly identified as a matter of reasonable certainty and with some degree of precision as actually having been the decisionmaker’s reasons for its decision. This principle derives from the principle of legal certainty. It does not suffice to find, somewhere in the relevant file, content which merely would have been a good reason for the decision if it had in fact informed the impugned

decision in the absence of a conclusion that it did in fact inform the impugned decision.110 Of course, that does not rule out reasoning by inference and much may turn in a given case on its facts and context.

▪ Reasons must be reasonably accessible to, identifiable as reasons (recognisable as such111) by and comprehensible to – capable of being “readily determined by” - the interested, intelligent and knowledgeable lay participant in the process and “any person affected by the decision”.

But “the potential audience is relevant” - arguably, though it need not be decided here, the reasons for a particular decision under the planning code (of which there are various types)

may need to satisfy even “the public at large”.112 Planning files often run to thousands of pages – sometimes many thousands – and the issues involved are often highly complex and multifactorial. An important function of reasons is to enable an interested party to decide whether to challenge the decision, whether by appeal or by judicial review – and usually to make that decision within a demanding time-limit. Such a person cannot be required to trawl a vast or “a confusing medley of documents or other disparate sources” to find reasons – to scour the haystack for the needle.113 The resulting tensions are recorded in Connelly114

“The reasons may be found anywhere, provided that it is sufficiently clear to a reasonable observer carrying out a reasonable enquiry that the matters contended actually formed part of the reasoning. If the search required were to be excessive, then the reasons could not be said to be reasonably clear.”115

▪ Connelly also records that issues may be complex and the arguments for or against a proposed project may involve detailed scientific argument or complex calculation. In such a case, the reasons for the decision may be complex and scientific and a party concerned may have to engage with such reasons.116 Depending on circumstance, public participants may need to roll up their sleeves and plunge into the complexities of a planning application.117 f. Reasons may be implicit from the context. For example, it can be implicit that arguments or matters submitted against a decision were outweighed by those in its favour. A related principle is that

110 Ballindooley Developments v the Minister for Housing, the OPR & Galway City Council [2025] IEHC 109 §29, Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC

31, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 45, EMI Records v Data Protection Comm [2013] IESC 34, [2014] 1 ILRM 225, Christian v Dublin City Council [2012] 2 IR 506.

111 Eco Advocacy CLG v An Bord Pleanála (C-721/21), [2024] Env L.R. 8 (2023) EU:C:2023:477 (Kokott AG); SWI, IFI, Sweetman & Ors v ALAB [2024] IEHC

421 §978.

112 NECI §157.

113 Voyage Property v Limerick City & County Council, Minister for Housing & OPR [2025] IEHC 696; Ballindooley Developments v the Minister for

Housing, the OPR & Galway City Council [2025] IEHC 109 §31, Killegland Estates Ltd v Meath County Council [2023] IESC 39; MRRA v An Bord Pleanála &

Lulani [2022] IEHC 318, Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 45, EMI Records v Data Protection Comm [2013] IESC 34, [2014] 1

ILRM 225, Christian v Dublin City Council [2012] 2 IR 506.

114 Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2021] 2 I.R. 752, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 453

115 Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2021] 2 I.R. 752, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 453 §73.

116 Connelly v An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2021] 2 I.R. 752, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 453 §74.

Concerned Residents of Coolkill v An Bord Pleanála & Midsal Homes [2025] IEHC 265 §83.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

reasons need not be explicitly stated for the obvious/self-evident.118 A further related principle is that a decision should not be quashed for lack of reasons if nobody could be in any real doubt as to what the reasons were.119

These principles seem to me to derive, at least in part, from the principles that administrative decisions should be interpreted holistically and in context and that one must “stand back and ask what the decision is fundamentally saying”.120 g. There is generally no obligation to give reasons for not changing one's mind from a previously articulated position absent a significant change in circumstances or a significant new point.121

I observe that this principle assumes that adequate reasons were given for the earlier decision, so that the reader of the later decision can understand why the later decision was made. If not, reasons for not changing one’s mind may be required. That the earlier decision may be, by lapse of time, immune from judicial review does not generally in law absolve a later decisionmaker from exercising its jurisdiction by a proper consideration of, or from having and giving reasons for, the later decision. This seems to me really a particular example of the principle that reasons may be implicit – that the later decisionmaker can be understood in all the circumstances to have adopted the reasoning of the earlier decision.

h. Reasons need not be explicitly stated for rejecting a legally incorrect point.122 That is because reasons need only be given for the exercise of evaluation and judgement – not for the correct application of a mandatory, non-discretionary, non-evaluative, legal rule.

I respectfully observe that, undoubtedly, administrative decisionmakers are not expected to produce legalistic judgments. Generally, it will suffice (and be necessary) for a decisionmaker to state what view of the law it in fact took and applied, without explaining why it took that view – if needs be the court will decide if that view was correct. Generally, it will not avail a decisionmaker to argue that it had good reasons for taking an incorrect view of the law, nor will it avail an applicant in judicial review to argue that a decision-maker took a correct view of the law for the wrong reasons. Yet I would respectfully caution against an overly rigid or doctrinaire application of this principle. For example, judges of inferior courts are expected, at least in some degree, to explain their view of the law and depending on circumstance it may be that at least some such explanation, if only contextual, may be necessary to explain an administrative decision. Viewing the matter practically, it may also fend off judicial review.

118 Morehart v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 418; Rana v Minister for Justice [2024] IESC 46; Industrial Development Agency v Information

Commissioner [2024] IEHC 649 §132; Killegland Estates v Meath County Council [2022] IEHC 393, [2022] 7 JIC 0106, [2023] IESC 39 §83; Connelly v An

Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2021] 2 I.R. 752, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 453 §37; Mallak v Minister for Justice [2012] IESC 59, [2012] 3 IR 297 §68.

Killegland Estates v Meath County Council [2023] IESC 39, [2023] 12 JIC 2109.

120 Mc Gowan v An Comisiúin Pleanála [2025] IEHC 405; O’Donnell v An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 381 §54; St. Margaret’s Recycling v An Bord Pleanála

[2024] IEHC 94 §57.

121 Killegland Estates v Meath County Council [2022] IEHC 393, [2022] 7 JIC 0106 §67; Pat O'Donnell v Dublin City Council, [2024] IEHC 671 §145.

Ironborn v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2023] IEHC 477.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

i. If some reasons are good and others bad, and though the issue is a “porcupine which bristles with difficulties”, the bad reasons may be severable if the good are truly stand-alone and suffice alone to explain the decision.123

j. Reasons may124 not be created ex post facto,125 as impugned decisions cannot be rewritten.126 That said, reasons which in fact informed the making of the decision when it was made, can be stated after the impugned decision has been published, if appropriate.127 I draw attention here to the words “if appropriate”. It is not carte blanche, as the duty is both to have reasons which actually informed the

decision when it was made, as well as to state them – Colbeam and Mallak.128 Only the latter obligation can be retrospectively met and even then some proper scepticism may be required. That is because the function of reasons is, inter alia, to enable an interested party to decide whether to challenge the decision, whether by appeal or by judicial review. Whether it will be appropriate to allow the statement of reasons after the decision has been published will depend on the circumstances in a given case – inter alia on the timing of the statement of reasons. For example, there may be little harm in permitting reasons to be stated shortly afterwards and before expiry of relevant time limits for appeal or seeking judicial review. Reasons stated only in response to judicial review need not be uncritically accepted and may, even if admitted in evidence, have consequences as to form of relief and as to costs.

k. I would add an observation: the Commission is not “primarily” a dispute-resolution tribunal,129 but depending on circumstance its stated reasons may need to resolve, and explain the resolution of, conflicts of evidence, including conflicts of expert evidence and disputes as to the reliability of evidence, if that is necessary to state the main reasons, on the main issues, “why the decision went the way it did”.130

WHETHER RELEVANT MATTERS CONSIDERED & OBLIGATION TO HAVE REGARD

32. In Z.I.131 Gillane J recently cited the caselaw132 to the effect that where a decision-maker records that it has considered a matter, it is presumed that it has done so unless the applicant in judicial review produces evidence adequate to displace the presumption. As Hardiman J said in GK, “… a person claiming that a

decision making authority had, contrary to its express statement, ignored representations which it had

123 Mount Salus Residents v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, OPR & Smyth [2025] IEHC 14 §305 & cases cited therein; Ironborn v Dun Laoghaire

Rathdown County Council [2023] IEHC 477; Element Power [2017] IEHC 550.

124 Humphreys J says “should”. That word can have a more or less imperative meaning. In my view, the importance of reasons is such that the principle

should be relatively strong.

125 FN v Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 116 §58, K v Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC 582 Ballindooley Developments Limited v Minister for Housing,

Local Government and Heritage & Ors. [2025] IEHC 109. R (Ermakov) v Westminster City Council [1996] 2 All ER 302.

126 Stapleton v ABP & Savona [2024] IEHC 3; SWI v ALAB [2024] IEHC 421 §82 & 1194.

127 RPS Consulting Engineers Ltd v Kildare County Council [2015] IEHC 113, [2017] 3 I.R. 61 §109.

128 Colbeam v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2025] IEHC 437 §30(iv); Mallak v Minister for Justice [2012] 3 IR 297, SC, §45.

129 O'Brien v An Bord Pleanála & Draper [2017] IEHC 773.

Kuwait v Kanj [2021] IEHC 395; Stapleton v ABP & Savona [2024] IEHC 3, FN v Minister for Justice [2025] IEHC 116; Connelly v An Bord Pleanála, Clare

County Council & McMahon Finn Wind [2018] IESC 31, [2021] 2 IR 752 §30.

131 Z.I. v The Minister For Justice [2025] IEHC 708

132 LTE v Minister for Justice [2022] IEHC 504, M.H. (Pakistan) v IPAT [2020] IEHC 364, G.K. v Minister for Justice [2002] 2 I.R. 418. Rana v Minister for

Justice [2024] IESC 46, [2024] 10 JIC 1801.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

received needed to produce some evidence, either direct or inferential, of that proposition before he could be said to have an arguable case.” The point was repeated in Jones,133 and in Rana, O’Malley J said that “a statement by a decision-maker that they have considered all the material put before them is sufficient, without further affidavit evidence, unless there is some evidence-based reason to think that they did not.” And, save where there is a quite particular reason to doubt it, “it is not, in general, necessary to support a statement that all material has been considered with further evidence to prove the veracity of the statement.”. Decision-makers “are not required to list out everything that has been put before them and address each aspect individually.”

33. As Hardiman J in GK acknowledged, evidence to displace the presumption may be inferential. But it will not suffice to simply express a merits-based disagreement with the Impugned Decision as evidence from which to infer that the decisionmaker couldn’t have considered the relevant consideration in question because, if they had, they wouldn’t have made the decision they did make. Even less can they say, as Mr Foran in truth does: if they had, they would have made the decision I suggested. Save in rare cases disclosing real irrationality, such reasoning offends the rule in judicial review that a decision may be quashed merely on the basis of a merits-based disagreement with it.

34. Obligations to consider or have regard to relevant matters can vary in strength depending on their context and terms and can be accompanied by intensifying words such as “due and adequate” (Atlantic Diamond, Cork County Council, Killegland and Coolglass134) and fall to be contrasted with obligations of compliance. I need not add to the reams of caselaw on the distinction135 save to note the summary recently by Humphreys J in Coolglass136 and his observation in Cork County Council137 that “No kind of compliance is required by a have-regard obligation, merely regard.”

THE CDM

35. The NTA’s Cycle Design Manual (“CDM”) of September 2023 is not a s.28 guideline but no doubt regard by the Commission to it is proper. It provides guidance on the design of on-road and off-road cycle facilities for urban and rural locations and states that it should be used for the design of all new or improved cycle facilities.138 Key design principles139 include that

133 Jones v South Dublin County Council [2024] IEHC 301 §163.

134 Atlantic Diamond Ltd. v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 322, [2021] 5 JIC 1403; Cork County Council v Minister for Housing, Ireland and the Attorney

General, [2021] IEHC 683, [2021] 11 JIC 0502; Killegland Estates v Meath Co. Co. & Giltinane [2022] IEHC 393. Coolglass v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC

1.

135 Some of which is listed in Jones v South Dublin County Council [2024] IEHC 301 §163.

Coolglass §63 & 64.

137 Cork County Council v Minister for Housing, Ireland and the Attorney General, [2021] IEHC 683: Also, Killegland Estates Limited v Meath County

Council [2022] IEHC 393. “the requirement was to “have regard to” those guidelines, not to comply with them …”;

138 §1.2.

§2.2

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

• “Pedestrian and cycle facilities on roads and streets, other than quiet streets …… should be segregated from traffic and from each other. …… segregated, safe cycle infrastructure is crucial to attract people to switch to cycling as a regular mode of transport.”

• “Cyclists often have to share the road with motor traffic” and

• “Mixed traffic environments can provide a suitable provision for cycling but only when vehicular traffic speeds and volumes are at an appropriate level140 …”.

• Road design for cyclists is not done in isolation or tabula rasa: “Cycle facilities are frequently implemented within new or existing road and street corridors that typically need to cater for a variety of transport modes and other uses. .. design of cycle facilities on multi-modal corridors will need to comply with a number of other relevant standards and guidance documents” – including, but by no means limited to, DMURS as “the overarching design manual for urban road and street design”.141

36. The CDM provides for design flexibility by stating “desirable minimum values” which designers should aim to achieve in all cases and also “absolute minimum values”.142 Notably and by way of example, “the desirable minimum width for a one-way cycle track with peak flows less than 300 cycles per hour is 2 metres, with an absolute minimum width of 1.5 metres.”143 However such absolute minimum values, in guidance mere regard to which may be required, should not be confused with or taken to be binding legal obligations. As Humphreys J said of even s.28 guidelines in Cork County Council144 using the word “mandatory” in the sense of a legally binding requirement of compliance:

“It is true that the guidelines phrase themselves in mandatory terms to the effect that certain things should or shall be done and so forth. However, all that has to be seen through the prism of the legal status of the guidelines, which in this instance is something that the council has to have regard to rather than be “required” to follow. While it sounds slightly metaphysical, the duty therefore, is to have regard to the Minister's view that certain things should be done. That is fundamentally different from a duty to do those things.”

“The fundamental point … is that have-regard-to-type guidelines do not become mandatory just because the Minister puts mandatory words in them …”

“That which is not mandatory does not become mandatory merely because it purports to use mandatory language ……. the use of mandatory language within any individual non-binding guidelines cannot …. “pull them up by the bootstraps” into mandatory guidelines.”

The appropriate parameters are set out at CDM Table 2.1.

141 §1.3

142 §1.3

143 §1.3 Cork County Council v Minister for Housing, Ireland and the Attorney General, [2021] IEHC 683, [2021] 11 JIC 0502.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

37. Two arguments against Mr Foran’s deployment of the CDM to effect in these proceedings strongly resonate:

• First, the Commission has no legal obligation of compliance with the CDM or its Table 2.1.

• Second, the proposition that the relevant vehicular carriageways will be “Mixed Traffic” environments – that the Commission “is choosing to mix cyclists together with motor vehicles in the same lane”145 – depends crucially on Mr Foran’s opinion that the cycle lanes to be provided in the Proposed Development are inadequate and so will result in appreciable numbers of cyclists disdaining their use and using the vehicular carriageways instead. Mr Foran’s opinion in that regard is inadmissible in evidence.

Both arguments are correct.

38. Though he significantly relies on it, Mr Foran’s approval of the CDM is not unalloyed. He considers it a poor substitute for the NCM which it replaced and, for example, says it “prominently fails to discuss or acknowledge issues of suitable widths or cycling-hostile traffic calming.”146

MATERIALS BEFORE COMMISISON

EIAR - DECEMBER 2022

39. As to the likely impact of the Proposed Development on the quantified existing transport environment in the vicinity of the Site, and as to proposing mitigation of such effects, the material assets considered in the traffic section of the EIAR include pedestrian, bicycle, public transport infrastructure and associated services in addition to the local road network and associated junction nodes. That section of the EIAR is underpinned by a formal Traffic and Transportation Assessment (TTA) and Mobility Management Plan (MMP) and is written as a concise summary of the TTA. Its methodology includes traffic counts to quantify the existing transport environment, trip generation estimation of the vehicle trips likely to be generated by the Proposed Development and a trip distribution exercise to assign across the local network trips generated likely to be generated by the Proposed Development.147

40. Dedicated cycling facilities in the existing transport environment are limited: on-road cycle lanes on the WDR and a raised cycle track in both sides of the Retail Park Road linking the Retail Park Roundabout to Bóthar Stiofáin.148

145 Affidavit 24 October 2025 §27.

146 Affidavit 24 October 2025 §62.

147 EIAR Vol 1 §13.1.1.1 & 2.

EIAR Vol 1 §13.1.2.1.1.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

41. As to transport infrastructure proposed other than by the Proposed Development, the Galway Transport Strategy 2016-2036 (“GTS”) - of the Council, Galway County Council, and the NTA - proposes upgrades to cycling facilities on the WDR, Bóthar Stiofáin and Rahoon Road.149 A nearby “Millars Lane scheme” easily accessible from the Proposed Development is identified as proposing an off-road shared pedestrian/cyclist route to Rahoon Road.150 The GTS envisages bus priority measures on the WDR, including bus lanes on both sides. The N6 GCRR Scheme is also cited.151

42. The transport infrastructure proposed by the Proposed Development is described as including “highquality dedicated pedestrian footpaths and cycle paths throughout the development site and upgrades to crossing facilities along desire lines on the adjacent road network”.152 However, these proposals were in effect superseded by the improved facilities proposed the RRfI.153

43. The EIAR154 addresses traffic impacts of the Proposed Development but in that regard and as I have said, is “written as a concise summary of the Traffic and Transport Assessment (TTA)”155 to which I now turn.

TTA - DECEMBER 2022

44. An expert TTA dated December 2022 by DBFL156 accompanied the planning application. In assessing impact on roads,157 it estimated trip generation by the Proposed Development and its impact on surrounding roads and junctions to 2039158 as yielding traffic increases at most of 6% and in many locations very considerably less.159 In doing so it applied the TII’s traffic growth forecasts for the Galway Metropolitan Area.160 It states that “For key local junctions, it can be seen that the proposed development upon full completion would have a minor impact on a number of key surrounding junctions.” And “For all key off-site junctions ….. the proposed development would have subthreshold impacts” - by reference to the TII Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines thresholds at which impacts are deemed material and to require more detailed assessment. Nonetheless, to ensure robustness, more detailed assessment was done, modelling the performance of the Retail Park Roundabout, the WDR/Gort Na Bro Roundabout and the New Gort na Bro

149 Rahoon Road runs roughly east/west north of the Site and has junctions with both Bóthar Stiofáin and the Gort na Bro Road.

150 Though I have been unable to ascertain where the Millars Lane site is and its utility to cyclists in the vicinity of the Proposed Development is not

apparent.

151 EIAR Vol 1 §13.1.2.1.2.

152 EIAR Vol 1 § 13.1.4.2.6.

153 See below.

154 EIAR Vol 1 § 13.

155 EIAR Vol 1 § 13.1.1.1.

156 Glenveagh’s traffic & transport engineers.

157 TTA §6.2.1.

158 TTA Table 6-1: Network Impact Through Key Off-site Junctions, Figure 6-1 Increase in Vehicle Trips generated in the key off-site junctions - AM Peak;

Figure 6-2 Increase in Vehicle Trips generated in the key off-site junctions – Interpeak;

TTA §6.1.1 identified Assessment Scenarios. The 'Do Minimum' traffic scenario considers the potential traffic levels across the network generated by

'committed development” in addition to existing flows, with TIl general growth rate assumptions applied. The Proposed Development traffic flows are

added to the 'Do Minimum' flows to yield 'Do Something' traffic flows.

160 TTA §5.4 cites the TIl Project Appraisal Guidelines for National Roads (PAG). See TTA Table 5-3: National Traffic Growth Forecasts: Annual Growth

Factors (Extract from Table 6.1 PAG).

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

Junction.161 This, the TTA said, showed that with the additional Proposed Development traffic, both roundabouts perform within capacity for all future scenarios assessed162 and that regardless of the additional Proposed Development traffic, the new Gort na Bro Junction would perform close to capacity during the interpeak in 2039.163

45. The TTA described164 the N6 GCRR Scheme as a key component of the GTS - as it is predicted to yield a 20% decrease of vehicular traffic in Galway city centre. Notably, the N6 GCRR Scheme includes works in the vicinity of the Site (the Gort Na Bro Road is to feed the N6 GCRR), including:

• the replacement of the Link Road from the Gateway Retail Park roundabout to the WDR/Gort Na Bro junction by a new Link Road from the Gateway Retail Park roundabout to a new signalised junction on Gort Na Bro Road.

• the upgrade of the WDR/Gort Na Bro Roundabout to a signalised crossroad. The TTA concluded that the Proposed Development does not adversely impact delivery of the N6 GCRR.

46. The TTA asserted that “The provision of high-quality pedestrian and cyclist facilities within the development is central to the design principles adopted in relation to the development proposals”.165 It considered existing and existing proposed cycling infrastructure166 and proposed, as part of the Proposed Development, an additional 2.75m two-way dedicated and segregated cycle track along Gort Na Bro Road north from the WDR to beyond the Site and shared pedestrian/cyclist paths along the Retail Park Road and the new Link Road. These would “significantly improve safety and level of service for cyclists and will enhance cycle connectivity for the wider area, adjacent schools and the proposed development.”167 A bus stop on the Link Road was also proposed.168 These proposals were later upgraded by the RRfI.

47. The TTA anticipated that the Proposed Development would have a “negligible impact on the operation and capacity of the current public transport network”169 and it concluded that the anticipated traffic levels generated by the Proposed Development will be such that its impact on the surrounding road network - existing and future - will be “nominal” and that “the proposals represent a sustainable and practical approach to development” of the Site. 170

48. I will address below certain further TTA content as to quantification of expected traffic levels in light of Mr Foran’s allegation of their underestimation.

161 Figure 7-1: Junctions Included Within the Network Analysis.

162 TTA p78 & 82.

163 TTA p88 – the text says “roundabout” by that is clearly an error.

164 §2.5.4 Road Network. Figure 6-3 Increase in Vehicle Trips generated in the key off-site junctions - PM Peak; Figure 6-4 increase in Vehicle Trips

generated in the key off-site junctions - Weekend Peak.

165 TTA p45.

166 TTA §2.5.1 - Figure 2-16 GTS Proposed Cycle Network in the surroundings of the site (Source: Galway Transport Strategy 2016); Figures 2-17 & 2.18:

Proposed Millars Lane Pedestrian and Cycle Route & Gort Na Bro Connection.

TTA p45 et seq & Figure 4-5: Pedestrian/Cyclist Facilities at Proposed Gort Na Bro Signalised Junction, Figure 4-6: Proposed Pedestrian/Cyclist

Crossing Facilities, Figure 4-7 Cycle facilities in the proposed site & §6.3.2.

168 TTA p50 and Figure 4-9.

169 TTA §6.2.2 TTA §9.2.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

INFRASTRUCTURE DESIGN REPORT – DECEMBER 2022171

49. Submitted with the planning application, Glenveagh’s expert “Infrastructure Design Report” by DBFL asserts as follows as to “Cyclist and Pedestrian Connectivity”:

“Shared surfaces, cycle lanes and footpath's aim to provide quality connections between the proposed development and the surrounding amenities and development. This is adopted through the provision of the following;

• Pedestrian crossings at key locations to provide permeability throughout the site.

• New cycle facilities will be provided, including on the new link road, connecting the new signalised junction to existing internal mini roundabout.

Links provided through the development will allow both pedestrians and cyclists to access from the Western Distributor Road, Gort Na Bro Roundabout, Gateway Retail Park link and from proposed link road.” 172

MR FORAN’S OBSERVATION – FEBRUARY 2023

50. Mr Foran’s observation of 13 February 2023 was laconic. He asserted, without elaborating, that the following treatments of cycling were “deficient”: “on the surrounding roads”; “at the new signalised junction” and “at the proposed pedestrian crossings”. He said the “design of the cycle track on the Gort Na Bro roundabout requires further consideration” and he expressed concerns about the implied removal of road space from cyclists travelling south towards the New Gort na Bro Junction at and on the approach to the WDR/Gort na Bro Roundabout.

51. He expressed a willingness to meet the Council’s planners to discuss his views. I presume he was unaware that such a meeting was not a possibility in the process before the Council.

TII OBSERVATION – FEBRUARY 2023 & COMMENT THEREON

52. As recorded in the Council’s refusal Reason 1, TII’s observation to it on 15 February 2023 records both that it had examined Glenveagh’s planning application and its view that the Proposed Development was at variance with policy in relation to control of development on/affecting national roads, as outlined in the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines. That was so as the Proposed Development by itself, or

171 A Mobility Management Plan was also submitted with the Planning Application but I did not find it of assistance for present purposes.

§2.4

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

by the precedent which is permission would set, would adversely affect the operation and safety of the national road network as

• The Site is close to the preferred and/or approved route of a national road scheme and the proposed development could prejudice plans for its delivery. Variance with §2.9 of the Guideline is asserted.173

• Insufficient data had been submitted with the planning application to demonstrate that the Proposed Development will not have a detrimental impact on the capacity, safety or operational efficiency of the national road network in the vicinity of the site.

53. I cannot refrain from observing that this appears to be an entirely “boilerplate” letter. It displays no engagement with the specifics of the case. It does not even identify the national road scheme in question (one is left to infer that it is the N6 GCRR), is apparently unaware whether that scheme is approved or merely preferred and says nothing as to how the Proposed Development could prejudice plans for its delivery or how it would serve as an objectionable precedent. Its assertion of insufficiency of data in the planning application is entirely unhelpful as to of what, in substance, the insufficiency consists or how it might be addressed. As, clearly, such letters should not be sent on a merely speculatively defensive basis, I must presume that, having examined the application and in order to make the assertion, TII must have formed a substantive view in those regards - which it keeps to itself. It certainly does not assist Glenveagh in remedying the insufficiency – or the Council in asking Glenveagh to remedy it. As a desultory contribution to the planning process – even as a contribution to the protection of the national road network in its charge – the observation is, at least considered discretely, distinctly unimpressive.

54. No doubt, TII must consider many proposed developments. But the resulting, and no doubt considerable, burden on TII lies in the actual and careful consideration of those proposed developments and their implications for the national roads network and in its recording of that consideration for its own purposes in responsibly developing and adopting a position thereon. That must be particularly so in opposing an LRD in a housing crisis. The burden does not derive from drafting a resulting and informative letter to the planning authority or ACP. Further, even from its own point of view of protection of the national road network and remembering that it is not the decision-maker on the planning application, the more specific its objection the more likely it will be persuasive and have effect.

55. Given the boilerplate, one would hope there was another channel of communication with TII, elaborating on its observation but compliant with fair procedures. None is referred to or suggested in the TII observation. That said, and as will be seen, Glenveagh, in preparing its RRfI, liaised with the N6 Project Team of the Galway National Roads Project Office. As I understand, national roads project offices can be thought of as local TII offices, operated with local authorities to deliver national roads projects locally. As will be seen, the N6 Project Team locally, in light of the RRfI, took a quite different view of the Proposed Development to that taken by TII nationally.

2.9 Protection of Alignments for Future National Road Projects.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

RFI - MARCH 2023 & RRFI - AUGUST 2023

56. The RfI dated 3 March 2023, as to traffic issues, while nominally referable to TII concerns,174 appears to have derived its substance and detail from the Council’s Transport Department.175

57. Glenveagh’s RRfI dated 22 August 2023, by MKO,176 and an additional RRfI by DBFL as to Roads dated

23 August 2023, address, inter alia, RfI questions as to

• 1 - Compliance with TII Requirements.

• 2 - Issues raised by the Council Transport and Infrastructure Department.

• 3 - Public Transport Services and Proposed Cycling Infrastructure. It is not practical to recite the entire relevant content of these documents here. However, the following content bears setting out.

58. The RRfI, including as to cycle infrastructure, was informed by design team discussions with the NTA and the Galway National Roads Project Office responsible for delivery of the N6 GCRR and by the recommendations of a Stage 1/2 Road Safety Audit and Road User Audit.177 Generally, the Proposed Development was redesigned in an effort to maximise possible alignment with the N6 GCRR Scheme and with multiple potential BusConnects scenarios, which will significantly increase bus services in the area – all within the constraints of the Site of which Glenveagh had control.

59. The RFI had cited NTA and Council concerns that

• shared facilities dominated throughout the application.

• much of the proposed cycling infrastructure did not align with the National Cycle Manual 2011

(“NCM”)178 as to cycle lane widths and to the effect that facilities shared by pedestrians and cyclists generally

increase the potential for cyclist and pedestrian interactions, yield reduced Quality of Service for both and should not be considered as a first option.

60. In response, the RRfI proposed cycle routes redesigned to mitigate shared facilities in light of the NCM and the discussions with the NTA. The redesign179 reduced use of shared surfaces and included separate travel lanes, marked to enhance legibility, increasing segregation between pedestrians and cyclists. Bidirectional cycle tracks were provided, with tracks widened from 2.75 to 3m as requested and in

174 RfI Item 1 is headed Compliance with Transport Infrastructure Ireland Requirements.

175 Inspector’s report p14.

176 Glenveagh’s planning consultants.

177 Dated 14 August 2023, by Bruton Consulting Engineers - done in accordance with TII Publication GE-STY-01024, dated December 2017 and DMURS.

The DBFL Response to Item No. 2 (d) records that the audit recommendations were incorporated into the proposed road layout.

178 Though Mr Foran cites it repeatedly and it was current for much of the planning process, it was withdrawn and replaced by the Cycle Design Manual

(“CDM2) in September 2023 such that the Commission properly had regard to the latter. However as the RfI was framed in terms of the NCM, I have

cited it in the context of the RRfI.

Drawing 180191-1-04-X-XXX-DR-DBFL-CE-1201 Revision P03 is cited as illustrating the new proposals. Figure 1 above is an excerpt from that drawing.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

accordance with the BusConnects Design Guidance.180 For example, the Council complained that the Link Road did not cater for cyclists and created conflicts with bus and cars. In response, the previous proposal for a 5.0m shared path on the southern side of the Link Road was revised to a 2m footpath and 3m two-way cycle track. A floating bus stop island was added and the cycle track narrows to 2.0m, as it passes that bus stop (in accordance with the BusConnects Design Guidance and in part in response to the Road Safety Audit181) to provide clear routes for pedestrians and cyclists, minimising potential conflicts. The RRfI asserted that the revised cycle infrastructure proposals accord with the NCM, create a well-planned and accessible environment that supports sustainable and active modes of travel and provide high-quality connections for pedestrians and cyclists.

Comment on RRfI & on Evaluative Assessment thereof

61. In my view, the RRfI provided a clear and reasoned account of the revised cycling infrastructure proposals. No doubt one might, as a matter of evaluative judgment, disagree with and reject that RRfI content as to its provision for cyclists and as to its approach to resolution of cyclists’ requirements with the competing requirements of pedestrians and motor vehicles. No doubt also, in disagreeing with and rejecting that RRfI content, one might properly call in aid and properly have regard to the many, varied and more or less weighty national and international182 guidance documents which Mr Foran cited to the Council, the Commission and the Court as representing best practice. However, the decision to be made as to acceptance or rejection of the revised cycling infrastructure proposals, in light of all the relevant materials before it, was a matter for the expert, evaluative, multifactorial, planning judgement of the Commission. It is to the Commission, not to the courts, that the law entrusts such decisions. My disagreement with such decisions as to their merit (Were I technically competent to disagree – which I am not.) would not imply illegality in the

decision. Such evaluative judgements, being judicially reviewable as to merit only for irrationality and as Mr Foran has not pleaded irrationality, are not capable of being quashed as to their merit. However, pleadings apart, I see no basis on the evidence before me for a finding of irrationality in these respects.

NATIONAL ROADS PROJECT OFFICE (N6 PROJECT TEAM) & TII OBSERVATION - SEPTEMBER 2023

62. The N6 Project Team of the Galway National Roads Project Office observed to the Council on 25th September 2023 and in light of the RRfI that,

“While the revised design of this proposed development ….. is not fully consistent with the N6 GCRR design, it is not in material conflict with the N6 GCRR design”.183

Preliminary Design Guidance Booklet for BusConnects Core Bus Corridors (NTA, 2022).

181 §4.1 advised of a risk that at the bus stop bus users could alight into the path of passing cyclists.

182 E.g. Lancashire the Cyclists County Pinch Points Lane Widths 2005, Cycling England Design Portfolio Clear Space 2008, Copenhagen Focus on Cycling

2013, UK Department of Transport LTN Cycle Infrastructure Design 2020.

Inspector’s report p14

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

63. Despite the terms of the N6 Project Team observation to the Council in light of the RRFI, TII on 29 September 2023 contented itself with an entirely anodyne and unconstructive observation that its position remained as stated in its earlier observation of 15 February 2023. Nothing more is said. Again, there is no engagement with the specifics of the case or with the RRFI to which it purports to respond or with the fact that its own local office had stated that the Proposed Development “is not in material conflict with the N6 GCRR design.” This observation is not a meaningful contribution to the planning process.

MR FORAN’S OBSERVATION – OCTOBER 2023

64. Mr Foran’s observation on the RRFI was more detailed than his earlier observation. He again expressed a misconceived willingness to meet the Council’s planners to discuss his views. He objected to what he termed the downgrading of the zebra crossing from the School to the Retail Centre to a toucan crossing as “deeply misguided” and cited various documents in support. He welcomed some of the proposals as they bore on cycling but stated

“However, little consideration seems to have been given for the needs of cycle-traffic that is passing through this area. I have serious reservations as to the value of the proposed two-way cycle tracks.

These appear to have been squeezed into the design with little coherent thought and at the direct expense of road space for people on bicycles who are travelling through this location. If the purpose of these cycle tracks is to link the school with the Western Distributor Road, then in my view the most coherent and straightforward way to achieve this is to provide cycling and walking routes through the interior of the development.

In my view many bicycle users passing through the location on the main roads will simply ignore the cycle tracks that are currently proposed and stay on the road. The apparent absence of coherent space for cycling on obvious desire lines means that some bicycle users will feel invited to cycle on footways.”

NTA OBSERVATION - OCTOBER 2023

65. The NTA observation to the Council dated 26 October 2023, in response to the RRfI, welcomes the proposals for bus services and enhanced active travel infrastructure and considers the latter “generally in line” with the CDM.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

GLENVEAGH’S APPEAL & TECHNICAL NOTE - DECEMBER 2023

66. Glenveagh’s appeal to the Commission of the Council’s refusal of permission addressed the Council’s refusal on traffic grounds184 which, as will be recollected, had specifically asserted non-compliance with the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines. The Appeal,

• Asserted that Glenveagh, in formulating its design, was contending with conflicting/competing requirements. The overarching objective was that the Proposed Development did not conflict with or prejudice the delivery of the N6 GCRR, while ensuring that the NTA’s and the Council’s public transport185 and active travel requirements were catered for.

• Submitted in that despite the competing requirements, the design achieved the required objectives.

• Asserted an error in the Council’s consideration of the TII Submissions – which had informed its refusal Reason #1 and which I consider below in terms of the Inspector’s view thereon.

• For the avoidance of doubt, set out the text of TII’s second, post-RRfI, observation which, the Council states, asserts that the Proposed Development “is at variance with …. the DoECLG Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines for Planning Authorities (2012)”.186

• Cited the RRfI – including o Glenveagh’s consultation with the N6 GCRR project team and the NTA and the resultant alterations of the Proposed Development.

o The reasons for the limits to alignment of the Proposed Development with the N6 GCRR Scheme187 – despite which the Proposed Development delivers the overarching requirement of the N6 GCRR at this location - a realigned link road between Gort na Bro Road and Bóthar Stiofáin.188 The Appeal cited the N6 GCRR project team’s satisfaction and TII’s continued dissatisfaction, nonetheless.

o The NTA’s satisfaction with the Proposed Development by reference to the CDM and BusConnects.

67. The accompanying Technical Note, by DBFL, elaborates on the response to the Council’s refusal on traffic grounds - which it characterises as associated with the interaction between the Proposed Development and the N6 GCRR. As here relevant, it observes that one reason for some non-alignment with the N6 GRR design in the area was that the N6 GRR design included no cycle facilities or bus stops, whereas the revised Proposed Development includes cycle facilities and public transport facilities as requested by the NTA and the Council.

Appeal §5.1.1 et seq.

185 The word “transport” is missing from the Appeal document but the sense is clear.

186 Figure 4 Extract from Planners Report (PI Ref. 23/03) Galway City Council.

187 §5.1..2 - Elaborated in the Technical Note.

The Eastern part of that link being the new Link Road.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

MR FORAN’S OBSERVATIONS - JANUARY 2024

68. Mr Foran, by observation to the Commission dated 17 January 2024, repeated his observations to the Council. He “expresses serious reservations as to the value of the proposed two-way cycle tracks” and gives various reasons. Echoed orally at trial was the assertion that they had “been squeezed into the design with little coherent thought and at the direct expense of road space for people on bicycles” and that

“many bicycle users passing through the location on the main roads will simply ignore the cycle tracks that are currently proposed and stay on the road. The apparent absence of coherent space for cycling on obvious desire lines means that some bicycle users will feel invited to cycle on footways.”

69. Points that stood out to Mr Foran included a lack of a coherent cycling link between the Retail Park and the Gort na Bro Road and that various shared space treatments at crossings and junctions imply loss of cycle priority. He also objected to the intended Toucan crossing between the School and the Retail Park.

INSPECTOR’S REPORT – MARCH 2024

70. The Inspector’s report, dated 14 March 2024, records189 that the Site is part of the “Knocknacarra District Centre (North) Opportunity Site”, so designated in the Development Plan and so is subject to specific development objectives including that any proposed development integrate

• in the overall district centre, protect the amenity of the neighbouring school, and demonstrate linkage with the wider neighbourhood area, the transport, pedestrian and cycle networks and the green network.

• integrate in its design the realigned link road to the N6 GCRR.190

71. The Inspector’s report records191 that the GTS requires, inter alia,

• Improvements to public transport, cycling and walking networks and a new orbital route.192

• Prioritisation of walking, cycling and bus movements.

72. As to the process before the Council, the Inspector’s report, inter alia, records193 that

189 §5.4.5.

190 This seems to be a reference to the Gort na Bro Road from the Gort na Bro Road/WDR Roundabout north to the N6 GCRR. But if I am wrong, nothing

turns on it.

191 §5.4.10.

192 I take the reference to a new orbital route as a reference to the N6 GCRR. But, again, if I am wrong, nothing turns on it.

§3.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

a. the Council’s Transport Department had advised, inter alia, ▪ consideration of particular concerns as to the provisions proposed for cycling. The roundabout junction should be considered to be removed and upgraded to provide for cyclist and walkers.

▪ that a Road User Audit should be done.

▪ that the Link Road does not cater for cyclists and creates conflicts with the bus and cars, shared space dominates throughout the application, cycle track (two-way) cannot be narrower than 3.0m, ▪ consideration for use of segregated Toucans, rather than Zebras.

▪ increase in traffic, and potential increase in peds and cyclists, needs to be considered in terms ▪ of the existing WDR roundabout.

Unfortunately, the Inspector does not give the date of the Council’s Transport Department advice. I think it preceded the RRfI.

b. The N6 GCRR Scheme project team considered the design of the Proposed Development not fully consistent with, but not materially in conflict with, the N6 GCRR Scheme design.

c. TII’s submissions both considered the Proposed Development at variance with policy as to control of development on/affecting national roads, set out in the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines, as it by itself, or by the precedent it would set, would adversely affect the operation and safety of the national road network.

d. The NTA194 considered the Proposed Development, as revised in the RRfI, to be generally in line with the CDM and welcomed the revised enhanced active travel infrastructure proposals.

e. Third Party submissions to the Council by, inter alia, Mr Foran and the Galway Cycling Campaign, had raised issues as to, inter alia, traffic impact, impact of the roads alterations on cyclists, conflict points between cyclists and pedestrians in the design proposal, non-compliance with DMURS, replacement of the zebra crossing outside the school with a toucan crossing deprioritises active travel users, provision of sheltered bicycle parking, two way cycle tracks, shared space, signalised junction with Gort na Bro and new link road, roundabout at gateway retail park, potential conflict between users of loading/drop-off bays and cycle tracks and existing cycle path needs to be upgraded.

73. As to the appeal to the Commission, the Inspector’s report, inter alia, records195 that Mr Foran’s observations in the appeal raised issues as to the treatment of cycling / cycle traffic, proposed downgrade of the zebra crossing at the school, traffic and transportation.

74. I observe that the foregoing demonstrates that Mr Foran’s concerns and submissions to the Council were brought by the Inspector to the attention of the Commission, which records its regard to the Inspector’s report.

194 Submission 26 October 2023, §6.3.1.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

Inspector’s Planning & EIA Assessments of Traffic Impact

75. In his planning assessment, the Inspector observes196 that

• the Council’s conclusion that the Proposed Development was not consistent with the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines and would “adversely affect the operation and safety of the national road network” and its refusal of permission accordingly for traffic reasons was, as Glenveagh’s Appeal had demonstrated, mistakenly based on TII reports and recommendations as to a different and irrelevant development.197

• The RRfI significantly altered the design to align with the N6 GRR where physically possible and to incorporate NTA requirements as to the Bus Connects Project, Council requirements and general good design practice for the delivery of active and public transport infrastructure.

• One reason for some remaining non-alignment with the N6 GRR design in the area was that the N6 GRR design included no cycle facilities or bus stops, whereas the revised Proposed Development Link Road includes cycle facilities and public transport facilities as requested by the NTA and the Council and in line with the current facilities on the existing road (for example, there is currently a bus stop on the road which cannot be removed without replacement as buses serve this route). Cycle facilities and public transport facilities are required to encourage modal shift to sustainable transport modes. High quality segregated cycle facilities were specifically requested in the RfI.

• While in response to the RRfI, the TII had maintained its criticisms, the NTA had revised its position to state that the revised design did not materially conflict with the N6 GRR design.

• The Inspector considers that, despite the various competing requirements, the amended Proposed Development supports delivery of the N6 GRR. In my view, it is clear that she prefers the view of the N6 GCRR Project Team to that of the TII nationally (as she and the Commission were entitled to do).

• She recommends that the Council’s refusal for traffic reasons be set aside.

76. In her EIA assessment of traffic and transport issues198 the Inspector incorporates, by reference, her planning assessment of those issues as set out above. She cites traffic modelling as part of the Traffic Impact Assessments for the operational phase of the Proposed Development as having found that, due to the proposed works, including the upgrade of the existing network and the provision of new routes, including enhanced pedestrian, and cycling infrastructure, the road network can accommodate the increased traffic

§7.5.

197 Inspector’s Report §7.5.2. It also states that the Council’s planner’s report states that Til’s concerns related to, inter alia, a 'gabion wall' structure

proposed as part of the development. However as Glenveagh pointed out, no gabion wall is proposed in the Proposed Development. The TII submission

cited in the Council’s planner’s report relates to an entirely separate planning application that included for the provision of a gabion wall.

§18.12.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

associated with Proposed Development – which is predicted to have a long-term positive cumulative effect as to traffic and transport.199 While it would be preferable had she done so explicitly, it is reasonably to be inferred that the Inspector accepts this assessment and prediction. She concludes:

“I am satisfied overall with regard to the above assessment that the proposed development would not have any unacceptable direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts in terms of material assets, cultural heritage and the landscape.”200

“There will be no significant negative impact on traffic junctions in the immediate area in the operational phase and any potential impact will be mitigated by way of design and implementation of a Mobility Management Strategy for the development.”201

77. As indicated earlier, the Inspector recommends that permission be granted for reasons and on conditions reflected in the Impugned Decision.202

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

78. Glenveagh makes preliminary objections203 which can be summarised as follows:

(i) The pleaded Grounds lack the particularity required by Order 84, Rule 20(3) RSC.204

(ii) Mr Foran failed to verify his Grounds, contrary Order 84 RSC.

(iii) The pleaded Grounds raise matters not raised before the Commission.

(iv) Mr Foran’s written submissions impermissibly raise issues as to which he was not granted leave to seek judicial review.

MR GORMAN IS AN EXPERT WITNESS - MR FORAN IS NOT

79. As to the substantive matters of road design in controversy in this case, Mr Noel Gorman, Director of DBFL Consulting Engineers, swore affidavits for Glenveagh. He and his firm are the consulting design engineers for the Proposed Development. He graduated in 2012 from the National University of Ireland, Galway, with a Level 8 bachelor’s degree in civil engineering. He is a Chartered Civil Engineer with 13 years post-graduate experience, including 12 years in the design and construction of roads and active travel infrastructure. He has led the design of both public and private active travel infrastructure projects throughout Ireland with construction values from €200,000 to €40 million. He has also worked in direct

199 §18.12.2.

§18.17.1.

201 §20.1.

202 §21.

203 At (III) of its written submissions.

Rules of the Superior Courts.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

consultation with the NTA (publishers of the CDM) on the design and construction of many active travel schemes. As to expertise, he undoubtedly qualifies as an expert. Though I have in the past205 expressed doubts as to the position of design engineers retained by developers and with a long history of professional commitment to a proposed development, the convention in litigation certainly is to regard their professional ethics and consultant status as conferring the necessary independence required of an expert witness. That convention was not attacked in this case. Mr Gorman is entitled to give expert opinion evidence in these proceedings. That view is not altered by the views of Mr Foran which I set out below.

80. Glenveagh says206 that as to any conflict between them as to road design, I must prefer Mr Gorman’s evidence to Mr Foran’s for three reasons:

• While Mr. Foran disagrees with Mr Gorman because Mr Foran thinks that something better could have been done, he doesn’t say Mr Gorman’s evidence is incorrect.

• Mr. Foran isn't an expert and so isn't entitled in law to contradict Mr Gorman, who is.

• Mr. Gorman hasn't been cross-examined on any such conflict, on which Mr Foran bears the onus of proof, such that, on RAS Medical207 principles, the conflict must be resolved against Mr Foran. I may as well say now that I accept these propositions.

81. In response to submissions characterising his views as non-expert, Mr Foran without leave and the day before the case, purported to file an affidavit exhibiting a document on its face purporting208 to emanate from the Department of Transport in 2009 and confirming his appointment to that Department’s National Panel of Sustainability experts. Filing that affidavit was procedurally impermissible. But I prefer to discount that evidence on the substantive ground recorded in Duffy, ETI and Murphy.209 Whatever his substantive expertise, as a party to the proceedings Mr Foran is disqualified from tendering expert evidence as he lacks the necessary independence to do so. I hasten to say that Mr Foran struck me at all times as entirely genuine and truthful. But the rule excluding his opinion evidence on matters within his expertise in proceedings to which he is a party is clear.

82. The view I have just expressed is illustrated – indeed amplified - by his self-description as a cycling advocate and activist of many years standing. That observation is, of course, no criticism of him. But having described himself as a “long standing advocate for cycling in Galway and elsewhere”,210 Mr Foran says:

“I say that I have been reviewing and writing about road design literature, road safety research and policy affecting vulnerable road users for over 25 years. From its formation in 2001 until 2014, I served as a community representative on the Transport and Infrastructure Strategic Policy Committee (SPC) of Galway City Council. From 2014 to 2019 I was a community representative on the Planning SPC of

205 Donegal County Council v Planree & Mid-Cork Electrical [2024] IEHC 194.

206 Transcript p164.

RAS Medical v Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland [2019] 1 IR 63.

208 By the use of which word I do not intend to cast doubt on the veracity of Mr Foran’s averment.

209 Duffy v ABP & McDonagh [2024] IEHC 558 §13, Environmental Trust Ireland v An Bord Pleanála [2022] IEHC 540 at §93, §96, Murphy v An Bord

Pleanála [2024] IEHC 59 at §13, §14.

Affidavit sworn 24 October 2025 §5.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

Galway City Council. From 2019 to 2024 I returned to the Transport and Infrastructure SPC. For the avoidance of doubt, my experience on these committees and elsewhere has led me to a personal policy, as an active travel advocate, of treating Irish educated civil engineers as being unsuitable to advise on the design of public roads until proven otherwise. I tend to take the same approach with civil engineers educated in England, Wales or Scotland.

I say that in 2008 I was participant in the founding of a national alliance of cycling campaign groups - the Irish Cycling Campaign (then branded as Cyclist.ie). The founding document for Cyclist.ie expresses concern about the training of engineers and about the perception that roads are being designed by engineers who had little understanding of cycling or cycling in traffic. That document, to which I was a contributor, also calls for an expert supervisory body at a high level over all roads schemes to ensure compliance with state policy on active travel. This remains my view and I do not believe such expertise regarding active travel exists in the Department of Transport at this time.”211

“In my experience Irish Road Safety Audit, Irish educated engineers cannot be assumed to have an understanding of the literature, or practice of road design, around avoiding conflicts between motor vehicles and cyclists.” 212

83. Of Mr Gorman’s credentials, and though I do not consider he intends it as a personal or particular insult, Mr Foran says,

“I am not personally in a position to treat these as reliable indicators of expertise in modern roads design practices.”213

Indeed, he invokes his views and asserted views of others criticising DBFL design of a (Toucan) crossing at the Browne Roundabout, Galway as creating “an obvious difficulty for claims of expertise in road design by Mr. Gorman and his colleagues at DBFL”. He has gone so far as to make “complaints to Engineers Ireland under their Code of Ethics regarding the apparent conduct of individual registered engineers engaged in design work on Active Travel or NTA funded schemes in Galway. The grounds for complaint include the use, or proposed use, of designs derived from DMURS …”. He gives examples, including of the many assertedly authoritative sources he cited in support of those complaints.214

84. Mr Foran is no doubt genuine in these views as they relate to the engineering profession generally and perhaps they have other adherents. He may perhaps, at some point in time and in greater or lesser degree, persuade Government, policy makers and even the Institute of Chartered Engineers of his views and to amend DMURS accordingly. But as tendered in these proceedings, they are opinions and the opinions of an advocate and party to the proceedings and are inadmissible in evidence. So, objectively and whether or not Mr Foran intended it, they invidiously and without legal basis impugn Mr Gorman’s professional

211 Affidavit sworn 24 October 2025 §53.

212 Affidavit sworn 24 October 2025 §12 & 13.

213 Affidavit sworn 24 October 2025 §69.

Affidavit sworn 24 October 2025 §77 et seq. See also Mr Foran’s earlier written submissions dated 12 June 2024.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

reputation. That is not to say, of course, that Mr Gorman’s views could not be contradicted by admissible evidence and that, on completion of the appropriate procedures for testing evidence, such criticism might not prevail. But no such evidence has been tendered. There is no doubt in my mind that:

a. The Commission was entitled to and did consider Mr Gorman’s opinions to be those of a road design expert.

b. On the evidence before me I must consider Mr Gorman’s opinions to be those of a road design expert.

c. For want of the necessary independence, and whatever his substantive expertise, Mr Foran is not qualified as an expert witness in this case and his opinions on road design are inadmissible in evidence.

d. It follows that, inasmuch as he substantively criticises road design (including design and provision of cycling facilities) in any respect requiring expert opinion thereon, his criticisms are mere assertions which do not discharge his onus of proof in judicial review.

e. Mr Foran has not adduced the opinion evidence of any expert contrary to that of Mr Gorman and has not chosen to cross-examine Mr Gorman in light of the principles laid down in RAS Medical.215 f. So, on the evidence before me and on all matters of opinion as to road design, I may not lend weight to Mr Foran’s opinions and must216 accept Mr Gorman’s. Further, the Commission was clearly entitled to and clearly did take that course.

85. In the foregoing circumstances, I do not consider it necessary to record in detail Mr Foran’s evidence and submissions as to his opinion of the inadequacy of the cycling facilities in the Proposed Development.217 It suffices as an example to record his general opinions that “the cycling facilities proposed in the current planning application are flawed on the following grounds 1) they rely on shared space arrangements at the junctions and crossings and 2) on Gort Na Bro road and the Link Road they are two-way cycle facilities situated only on one side of the road. This neglects obvious cycling desire lines on the opposite side of those

roads particularly for cycle traffic passing through the location to other destinations.” In similar vein, he says

that the cycling facilities in the Proposed Development offend the principle of “directness” stated in the CDM

– that cyclists are highly intolerant of detours and additional journey length.218

86. These opinions, on which he expands, represent the gravamen of his case. But they are inadmissible in evidence. Mr Foran deployed no admissible expert evidence in their support.

215 RAS Medical v Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland [2019] 1 IR 63.

216 Save in circumstances which I do not believe arise here.

217 For example at §20 et seq of his affidavit of 10 October 2024 – sub heading “The design of the cycling facilities”.

Affidavit of 24 October 2025 §80 et seq. Transcript p65 et seq.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

87. In considerable degree and given the subject matter of the concerns he articulates in these proceedings, these observations all but decide the case against Mr Foran.

IRRATIONALITY, REGARD, MERITS & MR FORAN’S ESSENTIAL CASE

IRRATIONALITY, REGARD, MERITS & DISGUISES

88. Mr Foran did not plead irrationality of the Impugned Decision. Nonetheless, he repeatedly invoked “common sense” and similar concepts in his critique of the design of the proposed cycle lanes and his written submissions219 repeatedly assert the irrationality of the Impugned Decision. He also alleged noncompliance of the design with various guidance documents to which the Commission was entitled, and in the case of s.28 guidelines bound,220 to have regard. But he never invoked any legal basis on which the Commission was obliged to comply with such guidance documents.

89. An obligation merely to have regard to a document or matter implies no obligation to comply with its content. As Humphreys J said in Cork County Council v Minister for Housing,221 “[n]o kind of compliance is required by a have-regard obligation, merely regard.” Further, as Simons J said in St. Audoen's,222 short of irrationality “The court cannot interfere with the decision of an administrative decision-making authority merely on the grounds that (a) it is satisfied that on the facts as found it would have raised different inferences and conclusions, or (b) it is satisfied that the case against the decision made by the authority was much stronger than the case for it.” And as recorded above, a decision may be quashed as to its merit only for irrationality – where it “flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense”.223 That threshold is extremely high and is almost never met in practice.224 As Humphreys J put it, strikingly, in Holohan,225 in judicial review, the court can’t quash for unreasonableness merely if it considers that the decision, on its merits was, even, “clearly wrong”:

“ The underlying reason why a court should not be permitted to find that an administrative or executive decision is wrong, or even clearly wrong, is the separation of powers. To do so the court would, … “be itself guilty of usurping power”.

90. As to what are in truth merits-based challenges to impugned decisions and while the drapery

involved is not always that of irrationality – indeed it often is not, as showing irrationality is so difficult – it

bears repeating here that, as was recently observed in Voyage,226 multiple authorities identify, as it was put

219 Of 20 November 2025.

220 Guidelines made pursuant to s.28 PDA 2000.

221 Cork County Council v Minister for Housing [2021] IEHC 683.

222 The Board of Management of St. Audoen's National School v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 453, [2021] 7 JIC 1502.

223 See many decisions, including Z.I. citing O’Keeffe v An Bord Pleanála [1993] 1 I.R. 39 and The State (Keegan) v Stardust Compensation Tribunal [1986]

I.R. 642.

224 Simons J in St Audoen’s.

225 Holohan v An Bord Pleanála [2017] IEHC 268 citing Chief Constable of North Wales Police v Evans [1982] 1 WLR 1155. Cited to this effect in Fernleigh

v ABP & Ironborn [2023] IEHC 525 and in SWI, IFI, Sweetman & Ors v ALAB et al [2024] IEHC 421 §16.

Voyage Property v Limerick City & County Council, Minister for Housing & OPR [2025] IEHC 696 §169.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

in Jones,227 “a merits-based disagreement dressed up in legal language”. The phrase has its origin in Cart228

in which Lady Hale said that “it is not difficult to dress up an argument as a point of law when in truth it is no

more than an attack upon ... factual conclusions”. Courts must try to see through the disguises.

91. Counsel for Glenveagh observed: “I am not sure the Court will have come across a more stark attack on the merits of a design or the merits of a decision than this one.”229

ESSENCE OF MR FORAN’S CASE – CYCLE LANES INADEQUATE

92. While he balked somewhat at the characterisation, my impression of Mr Foran’s oral submissions was that his essential case was, as his opponents said, fairly represented by certain of the content of his papers. He deposed230 that these proceedings “could have been avoided”,

“ … if the developers, or the Board ….. had chosen to employ engineering advisors who displayed an understanding of the general assumption that cyclists expect to travel on both sides of urban roads and the reasons for this assumption.”

“… had Mr Gorman and his colleagues proposed cycle facilities on both sides of the affected roads with junction treatments in accordance with latest best practice.”

93. In his written submissions, Mr Foran said:

“Two-way cycle tracks running beside urban roads are also controversial and various sources associate them with increased risk of collision with moving motor vehicles at priority junctions.”231

“…there would likely have been no challenge” “If the Commission had ordered that there be cycling facilities on both sides of the roads to be modified” “and had ordered that they comply with the guidance (the current designs are “not appropriate” according to the 2023 Cycle Design Manual).”

“However the Commission has adopted a design which, as is explained in the guidance being followed, involves mixing cyclists and motor vehicles including buses in the same traffic lane.”232

94. In my view, counsel for Glenveagh was not unfair in asserting that the “key issue” in Mr Foran’s “case is about a design choice … to provide a two-way cycle facility on one side of the road rather than cycle

227 Jones v South Dublin County Council [2024] IEHC 301 §230. See recently Colbeam v Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council [2025] IEHC 437 and

Moran v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 510.

R (Cart) v Upper Tribunal [2011] UKSC 28, [2012] 1 AC 663, §47.

229 Transcript p158.

230 Affidavit Sworn 24 October 2025 §10 & §85.

231 Earlier Foran submissions dated 12 June 2024.

Foran Submissions 20 November 2025. I have amalgamated content of §§34, 36 & 38 to omit repetitious content.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

facilities on both sides of the road”233 and in that respect his is essentially a merits-based disagreement with the Impugned Decision. The Link Road is about 100m long and the stretch of the Gort na Bro Road on which cycle lanes are to be added is about 160m long.234 I should note, however, Mr Foran’s argument that the shorter the cycle lane the more likely cyclists will not detour or delay to use it.235

95. In my view, essential to Mr Foran’s case are his opinions that:

a. The Commission o considered only the impact of the Proposed Development on the N6 GCRR – not the cumulative local impact of the N6 GCRR and the Proposed Development.236 o focussed on avoiding impacts on motor traffic and avoided the question of impacts from motor traffic.237

b. Guidance contraindicates two-way cycle lanes save where unavoidable as they tend to be more awkward in various respects for cyclists to use. Cyclists are averse to and in practice evade such awkwardness. Good road design principles recognise that aversion and, as a matter of behavioural science and ergonomics,238 adopts the principle of “directness” identified in the CDM. This principle recommends design of cycle lanes along cyclists’ desire lines. The CDM says:

“Ideally, cycle routes should connect origins and destinations using the shortest route with as little delay as possible. Minimising the effort required to cycle, by enabling cyclists to maintain momentum, is an important aspect of directness. An indirect designated route involving extra distance or more stopping and starting will result in some cyclists choosing the most direct, faster option, even if it is less safe.”239

c. In its provision of cycle lanes – essentially by proposing two-way cycle lanes on one side only of the Retail Park Ring Road and the Gort Na Bro Road - the Proposed Development contravenes these principles. Some cyclists will face avoidable delays and diversions just to get onto the cycle lanes.

d. As a matter of prediction, and by reason of such contraventions, at least some cyclists will in practice use the vehicular carriageways instead of the cycle lanes or will mount footpaths (albeit illegally). Thus de facto and predictably, the Proposed Development will create lanes shared by cyclists and motor vehicles and spaces shared by cyclists and pedestrians. This is crucial to Mr Foran’s case. His view that the Proposed Development, as compared to the width of the existing link road between the two roundabouts, “will result in the carriageway space currently available to cyclists being reduced with a likely effect of increased conflict with motor vehicles”240 is premised on his opinion, inadmissible in evidence, that in appreciable numbers cyclists will not use the cycle lanes.

233 Transcript p157.

234 Transcript p22.

235 E.g. Transcript p63.

Transcript p47.

237 Transcript p50.

238 Mr Foran did not use these terms, but they are consistent with his meaning.

239 P10.

Affidavit 24 October 2025 §6.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

e. Though he did not put it quite this way, as no system is perfect and as human nature is such that the occasional contrarian cyclist will not use even the most convenient cycle lanes, Mr Foran must be taken to opine that the number or proportion of cyclists who will prefer the vehicular carriageways to the proposed cycle lanes will be significant – though by what criterion significance is to be discerned he does not say and I have no idea. In any event, judgements made by reference to any such criterion of significance would undoubtedly be evaluative judgements for the expert administrative decisionmaker.

f. As the vehicular carriageways are too narrow for safe shared use by cyclists and motor vehicles, the Proposed Development, as to road design, is unsafe. In this respect, he deposes that the design width of a bus or HGV is 2.6m and of a cyclist is 65cm to 75cm such that there is not enough width in a 3.0m traffic lane for one to safely pass the other.241

96. This last calculation as to lane width is superficially attractive. But Mr Foran faces real difficulties in this regard:

a. As stated, the observation is premised on the presence on the vehicular carriageway of significant numbers of cyclists disdaining to use the cycle lanes and his opinion as to such a prospect is inadmissible.

b. Mr Gorman is uncontradicted by admissible evidence when he deposes that “The CDM242 supports narrow carriageways, noting that it is one of the most effective design measures that calms traffic, …..

both the link road and Gort Na Bró have carriageway widths in excess of those prescribed in DMURS for arterial and link roads.”243

c. Mr Foran accepts244 that DMURS advocates the use of narrow traffic lanes (3.0m to 3.25m) in arterial situations. DMURS holds that “Narrow lanes are one of the most effective design measures that calm traffic.”245

d. Mr Foran’s deposed246 criticism is that in this respect DMURS, including its “recommending narrow lane widths”, is in his opinion not properly research-based, is “innately incompatible with the intent of the Climate Act and the associated Climate Action Plans” and is “innately hostile to the needs of pedal cyclists in elements of its recommendations”. He asserts that “some of the traffic calming guidance in DMURS is innately hostile to users” as pushing cyclists and other traffic together.

e. He has abandoned his challenge to DMURS. I must take DMURS as valid in law and as the expression of an expert view on road design – including for cyclists. Indeed, it is not just any expert view - DMURS

241 Affidavit 10 October 2024 §38.

§4.2.9.2.

243 Affidavit 3 November 2025 §14.

244 Affidavit 10 October 2024 §38.

245 DMURS §4.1.2 & 4.4.1 Carriageway Widths.

Affidavit 10 October 2024 §38 & 41 et seq, including §73. See also Mr Foran’s earlier written submissions dated 12 June 2024.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

represents Government policy on road design. In fact, it is the primary such policy. Even if it is not bound by DMURS, it is very difficult, ceteris paribus, to see that the Commission’s decisions can be impugned as illegal by reason of compliance with DMURS.

f. Mr Foran’s invocation247 of superseded earlier guidance does not avail him.

g. Mr Foran’s invocation248 of a 2001 Galway Cycling Campaign information sheet on “Road Narrowings and Pinch points” and a 2003 Galway Cycling Campaign submission on the Draft City Development Plan and other similar documents and the sources they cite might have availed him before the Commission in informing its evaluative judgements. But they cannot avail him before the Court as evidence of illegality of the Impugned Decision.

h. Indeed, his depositions in this regard, recording the lengthy history of his and cyclists’ advocacy and assertedly negative national and local policy development over time, fall foul of the principle stated in Reilly that judicial review is not politics by other means.

97. It is important also to repeat that Mr Foran’s repeated assertions that the road design is for shared use by cyclists and motor vehicles of carriageways too narrow for safe shared use is specific to those cyclists who, he predicts, will not use the provided cycle lanes.

98. Though it was not prominent in his oral submissions, I understand Mr Foran also, in impugning “junction treatments (not) in accordance with latest best practice”, to criticise both the lanes249 and the toucan crossing for shared pedestrian and cyclist use. He cites250 the CDM:

"As shared facilities are generally disliked by both pedestrians and cyclists, signal controlled junctions with toucan crossings should only be used in exceptionally constrained environments or as part of an interim cycle scheme where a full junction redesign is not being undertaken." 251

He asserts that the environment is not exceptionally constrained.252

247 Affidavit 10 October 2024 §40 – “Provision of Cycling Facilities a National Manual for Urban Areas - Dublin Transportation Office 1998” - assertedly

“adapted from the Netherlands”.

248 Affidavit 10 October 2024 §49 et seq.

As the legend to Figure 1 above records, the cycle lanes are connected, typically at roundabouts and junctions, by strips depicted in light yellow,

which will be shared by cyclists and pedestrians.

250 Earlier Foran submissions dated 12 June 2024.

251 Amended Statement of Grounds §E(1)(5). (CDM Pp115 & 248. See earlier Foran submissions dated 12 June 2024.

See earlier Foran submissions dated 12 June 2024.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

MR GORMAN’S RESPONSE

99. While it is unnecessary to record here the entire of his detailed disagreement with Mr Foran, Mr Gorman deposes, in response to Mr Foran and by way of admissible expert opinion not contradicted by admissible evidence, that

a. the CDM contemplates two-way cycle tracks and “The proposed cycle facilities have been designed to be CDM compliant”.253 They “have been designed in accordance with both DMURS … and the CDM.”254 b. As recorded above, the CDM supports traffic calming by use of narrow vehicular carriageways and the Link Road and Gort Na Bró Road will exceed or comply with the widths prescribed in DMURS.

c. “The segregated cycle facilities proposed as part of the development adequately cater for the desire lines of cyclists ….”.255

d. “Mr Foran’s claim that the cycling facilities fail to meet the principle of “directness” is unfounded. The

facilities clearly offer direct connections to key destinations in the local area, including the Gateway Retail Park, the primary school, and the Millers Lane pedestrian and cycle link. They also enable convenient access to the wider network via the Western Distributor Road, which in turn connects to the N6.”256

e. Mr Foran’s criticisms of the proposed cycling facilities on the Gort Na Bro Road are unfounded for reasons including that

▪ “we could not have bi-directional cycle facilities on either side of the road as we didn't have land take on the eastern side.” (I note that Glenveagh is a private developer without CPO powers and can only develop on lands it either owns/controls or for which it has consent to development.)

▪ “To provide a segregated southbound cycle track on the eastern side of Gort Na Bró would have further misaligned the scheme from the N6 GCCRR proposals which do not allow for any cycle facilities.”257

f. As to alignment with the N6 GCCRR Scheme and resolution of competing constraints and desiderata, Mr Gorman contradicts Mr Foran’s inference:

“… I did not take the N6 GCRR Team’s position as an instruction but treated it as a significant constraint on the Proposed Development. I understand we cannot design in isolation and we must design an optimum and compliant solution within the project constraints and in respect of the Proposed Development, the following constraints were relevant: (i) TII’s N6 GCRR proposals and their

Affidavit sworn 3 November 2024 §23. See also Affidavit of Noel Gorman Sworn 30 September 2025 §18 et seq.

254 Affidavit sworn 3 November 2024 §12. Also §20.

255 Affidavit sworn 3 November 2024 §15.

256 Affidavit sworn 3 November 2024 §22.

Affidavit sworn 3 November 2024 §19.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

request to align with their design, (ii) NTA requirements for active travel and public transport infrastructure, (iii) the Council’s requirements, and (iv) balancing the multidisciplinary design teams requirements and aspirations (i.e. … of Landscape Architects, Architects and Engineers). In my opinion, DBFL designed an optimal DMURS and CDM complaint scheme while balancing the above constraints and considerations. One of the most significant constraints was to align the proposed scheme with the N6 GCRR, where possible.”258

g. Mr Gorman acknowledges that the CDM states that toucan crossings should only be used exceptionally - where a protected or segregated layout is not possible.259 Here, the rationale for a toucan crossing lay in the “need to strike a balance between the provision of appropriate active travel and public transport infrastructure whilst trying to align with the N6 GCCRR road reservation where physically possible.” And, in his opinion, “the proposed signalised junction of the new link road and Gort na Bró is compliant with the provisions of the CDM.”260

100. Mr Foran’s objection on affidavit to shared cyclist/pedestrian facilities at the Retail Park Roundabout did not loom large at trial. But Mr Gorman’s response on the issue usefully illustrates the reality that competing desiderata require resolution in multifactorial evaluative judgments – as to which I am reminded of Mr Justice Humphreys’ oft-repeated citation261 of Thomas Sowell’s aphorism: “There are no solutions, only trade-offs.” Mr Gorman observed262 that:

• The existing Retail Park Roundabout must be reconfigured to accommodate the realigned eastern arm to the relocated Link Road to the Gort na Bró Road.

• In design, tightening the existing Retail Park Roundabout geometry and circulatory carriageway to provide a protected roundabout with cycle priority263 was examined. But, on discussion with the NTA, it was deemed necessary to retain the existing roundabout geometry as a turnaround facility for four Bus Routes proposed in the BusConnects network plan. Nonetheless, the proposed shared facilities on the northeast/ southeast corners of that roundabout accord with the CDM ‘TL703 Segregated Roundabout with Shared Active Travel Facilities’.264

258 Affidavit sworn 3 November 2024 §25.

259 CDM p248.

260 Affidavit sworn 3 November 2024 §27 - 29.

261 E.g. Reid v Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 27.

262 Affidavit sworn 3 November 2024 §30 et seq.

CDM §4.6.5.1 Protected roundabout with cycle priority (TL 701) states: “A protected roundabout with cycle priority features a circular orbital cycle

track, which maintains full segregation between all modes, and parallel zebra crossings to enable pedestrians and cyclists to cross the carriageway with

priority. This roundabout design originated in the Netherlands and is being implemented in a growing number of countries worldwide. The first

protected roundabout with cycle priority in Ireland was recently constructed in Fingal (see Figure 4.123).”

CDM p273.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

INEXPERT OPINIONS & NON-MANDATORY GUIDANCE – NO LEGAL DEFECT

101. Some important further observations may be made at this point about the foregoing views of Mr Foran, which are, after all, the essentials of his case:

• With the arguable exception of his interpretation of the CDM, they are Mr Foran’s inexpert265 opinions on matters of expertise – of road design – and so are inadmissible in evidence. And whatever about the interpretation of the CDM, its application to road design in a particular factual matrix is undoubtedly a matter for expert multifactorial evaluative judgement as to many competing desiderata in addition to those relating to cyclists. Mr Foran’s inexpert opinions thereon are likewise inadmissible in evidence. Accordingly, his opinions on these matters fail to establish, or contribute to establishing, legal defect in the Impugned

Decision.

• Leaving aside both his arguments based on the Climate Change Acts and any distinction between evidence of opinion and of fact, inasmuch as Mr Foran asserts non-compliance with the CDM (and for that matter other non-mandatory guidance), he invokes guidance with which the Commission was not legally obliged to comply. In that respect, he fails to identify any legal defect in the Impugned Decision.

COMMENT ON MR FORAN’S OBSERVATIONS & LENS OF MATERIAL BEFORE COMMISSION

102. Notably, none of Mr Foran’s observations to the Council and the Commission cited:

a. The Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines, the Climate Acts or the Climate Action Plans on which his pleaded case is now centred, or the design of the road/cycle infrastructure by reference thereto.

b. Concerns, which he now pleads,266 as to combined impacts on traffic (including existing or proposed public transport and/or cycle traffic) on the roads abutting the Site (specifically the Gort Na Bro Road)

of traffic generated by the Proposed Development and traffic generated by the Gort Na Bro Road’s intended new role as a feeder to the N6 GCRR.

He deposes267 that while the Commission considered the effect of the Proposed Development on the N6 GCRR Scheme, it did not consider the likely effect of the Proposed Development, combined with impact of traffic generated by the N6 GCRR, on traffic, including cyclists using the Gort Na Bro Road - contrary to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines and to s.28(1) PDA 2000. As he pleads,268 §3.7 of those Guidelines advises that planning authorities and developers “address, as an integral element of their development proposals, potential negative impacts arising from existing or planned national roads.”

265 I repeat that I hold Mr Foran inexpert not for want of substantive knowledge or qualification but for want of independence.

266 Amended Statement of Grounds, §E, Part 1, §3.

267 Affidavit 10 October 2024 §19. Affidavit 24 October 2025 §26.

See below as to Ground 1.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

c. The N6 GCRR traffic forecasts of 2018269 of 5,300 (2024) to 6,377 (2039) AADT270 - including 3% HGVs - on the Gort Na Bro Road feeding the N6 GCRR,271 measured at a point which, Mr Foran says, is roughly 880m to 1km north of the Site near the Rosan Glas estate.272

He now says that ▪ “a component”273 (which he cannot quantify) of that AADT feeding the N6 GCRR will use the Gort Na Bro Road in the vicinity of the Site, ▪ That component represents “clearly a potential impact for the operation of the traffic arrangements”274 in that it will increase traffic on the road and interact with buses and cyclists using vehicular carriageways - which he considers inevitably and unnecessarily shared and too narrow.

Mr Foran essentially criticises the TTA’s use of the TII’s general traffic growth forecasts for Galway as in effect a “do nothing” assumption275 which failed to recognise that, in addition to such general growth, the reassignment of the Gort na Bro Road as a feeder road to the N6 GCRR would further increase traffic levels on the Gort na Bro Road.

103. It seems to me that these absences from Mr Foran’s observations to the Council and to the Commission are significant and should be put in context. At trial, Mr Foran adduced no admissible evidence:

a. Impugning any of the TTA content or its conclusion that the quantum (relatively) and effect of the traffic generated by the Proposed Development would be nominal.

b. Quantifying, even generally or by estimation, o any increase in traffic on the Gort Na Bro Road in the area of the Site due to its expected role as a feeder to the N6 GCRR. He merely suggested that an unquantified part of the 2018 AADT estimates for a junction quite distant from the Site would create such an increase.

o the extent to which, if at all, the 2018 forecasts he cites predict AADTs significantly exceeding those predicted by the TII’s general growth forecasts for Galway as applied in the TTA.

c. Establishing any reality to the proposition that, when combined with the merely nominal effect of the traffic generated by the Proposed Development, any increase in traffic on the Gort Na Bro Road due to its expected role as a feeder to the N6 GCRR would have a significant cumulative impact on the local

269 Galway County Council N6 Galway City Transport Project Phase 3 Traffic Modelling Report 28/03/2018.

Tables 7.4.1 to 7.4.7 – model outputs of various Low, Medium and High growth forecasts for 2024 and 2039 – the relevant AADT monitoring point is

#55. N6 GCRR AADT 2039 Design Year- Low Growth AADT Point 55.

270 Annual Average Daily Traffic - a measure of the total vehicle volume on a road over a year.

Foran Affidavit 10 October 2024 §17 & 118, N6 GCRR Planning files Appendix A.6.1 Phase 3 Traffic Modelling Report.

272 Transcript p48.

273 Earlier Foran submissions dated 12 June 2024.

274 Earlier Foran submissions dated 12 June 2024.

Though he did not quite put it that way.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

road network or cyclists thereon. Mr Foran is not required to prove such an impact, but he is obliged to demonstrate that the prospect exceeds the hypothetical or theoretical.

104. As to that last issue of cumulative effect, the only admissible evidence before me is that the effect of the Proposed Development’s traffic is “nominal”. It is important to recollect that, even when considering cumulative effect, what is at issue is the incremental effect of the Proposed Development and whether it is significant. As a general proposition “a thousand cuts” analysis may not, in a given case, be without substance – MRRA.276 I accept that on occasions a straw can break a camel’s back. It may also be that particular or insidious forms of environmental effect will properly be analysed in that way. But these are not the usual scenarios. Some purposive common sense must be brought to bear. Even in AA, in which permission may not be granted absent reasonable scientific certainty of absence of effect, merely hypothetical risks do not weigh, the effect must be appreciable and “legislative overkill” is to be avoided – MRRA,277 Eco Advocacy,278 and Heather Hill #2.279 In Sliabh Luachra280 McDonald J observed that “decisions should not be made on a purely hypothetical approach to risk founded on mere suppositions which are not scientifically verified.” A fortiori that must be so where, as here, AA is not at issue. Generally, decisions should not be quashed and remitted so the Commission can weigh the cumulative effect of a straw unless there is some evidential reason to consider that it may actually break the camel’s back. While I do not propose a formal test or to elaborate on the word “meaningful”, in general terms the question in considering cumulative effect is whether as “a matter of degree and judgment”281 it is considered that a proposed development makes a meaningful contribution to a posited significant cumulative effect. Even if Mr Foran is correct in asserting that the Commission should have considered but did not consider an issue of cumulative effect of the Proposed Development on traffic, including cyclists, local to the Site, his case in that regard is entirely theoretical and is not based on admissible evidence. Indeed, that can even be said as to his case as it turns on the incremental effect, considered discretely, on traffic levels on the Gort na Bro Road, of its designation to feed the N6 GCCR.

105. For what it is worth (which may not be much), I am unclear that Mr Foran has correctly cited the 2018 figures. The 2018 document provides figures for no less than 7 scenarios282 including low, medium and high growth assumptions. The figure of 5,300 AADT may relate to 2039 not 2024.283

106. Glenveagh assert that its 2022 TTA in fact assumed a higher AADT, of 7,439 in 2024, at the New Gort na Bro Junction284 than the 2018 N6 GCRR Traffic Modelling Report had assumed north of the Site and on which Mr Foran relies to specifically plead 5,300 to 6,377 AADT. The Commission threw into the mix at

276 Monkstown Road Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála & Lulani [2022] IEHC 318 §338.

277 MRRA §340 citing Eoin Kelly v An Bord Pleanála [2019] IEHC 84.

278 Eco Advocacy CLG v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 15 §96(vii).

279 Heather Hill Management v An Bord Pleanála #2, [2022] IEHC 146 §257.

280 Sliabh Luachra Against Ballydesmond Windfarm Committee v An Bord Pleanála [2019] IEHC 888, citing Case C-236/01 Monsanto [2003] ECR I-8166.

MRRA §339 citing Fitzpatrick v An Bord Pleanála [2017] IEHC 585, [2019] IESC 23 and Bowen-West v Secretary of State [2012] EWCA Civ 321, [2012]

Env L.R. 22.

282 Tables 7.4.1 to 7.4.7.

283 Table 7.4.7: N6 GCRR AADT 2039 Design Year- Galway Transport Strategy - Medium Growth.

Transcript p171 et seq. & TTA Appendix C: Traffic Flow Diagrams Figure: 12 . Location M & second, “Do Something” DS 2024 table on following page

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

trial285 the fact that, as recorded above, the TTA described286 the N6 GCRR as a key component of the GTS as it is predicted to yield a 20% decrease of vehicular traffic in Galway city centre. As to that, I observed287 that traffic on the Gort Na Bro Road might decrease accordingly or, alternatively, might increase in virtue of its new role in feeding traffic out of the city to the N6 GCRR.

107. On these issues, the impression I provisionally expressed at trial288 to counsel for Glenveagh and now retain is that “what this is really telling me is not so much that you are right or I'm wrong and Mr. Foran is right or he is wrong, as that this is really something for experts.”

108. As noted in FoIE v Ireland,289 failure to make to the Commission points made in judicial review, can weigh in favour of discretionary refusal of relief. Having noted that the applicant’s submission to the Board had not referred to crucial issues central to the appeal, the court said:

“This approach was unfair to the respondents, at the very least, and inimical to good decision making.

One of the objectives of public consultation is to permit the public to highlight defects in the process they believe have occurred before a final decision is taken so that any such defects may be corrected and the risk of inadvertently reaching an invalid decision thereby avoided. It is incumbent upon a party who chooses to participate in a consultative process (as on one who files objections or observations in a planning process) to raise any points at the earliest possible time in the process. This is conducive to good administration and ought to reduce the number of legal challenges to administrative decisions.

This court cannot endorse a practice where a point is raised for the first time in proceedings challenging a final decision which was not, but which could have been, raised before a decision was reached.”

109. In this case, I confess to being left with the distinct view, first, that the issues analysed above relate to the merits and demerits of the Proposed Development, second, that they are issues for experts, including the Commission, not lawyers and, third, that Mr Foran should have raised them before the Commission, rather than first before the Court. This seems to me a case to which the basic principle noted in Reilly applies that the legality of a decision is properly viewed through the lens of the material before the decision-taker at the time of the decision, and not with the benefit of further evidence in hindsight.

AMENDED STATEMENT OF GROUNDS – LAYOUT & PARTICULARS

110. The Amended Statement of Grounds is idiosyncratically, though generally not illogically, laid out. The distribution of particulars of law and fact as between the Particulars section, the Core Grounds section and

285 Transcript p133.

§2.5.4 Road Network. Figure 6-3 Increase in Vehicle Trips generated in the key off-site junctions - PM Peak; Figure 6-4 increase in Vehicle Trips

generated in the key off-site junctions - Weekend Peak.

287 Transcript p134.

288 Transcript p174.

Friends of the Irish Environment CLG v The Government of Ireland [2021] IECA 317 §275 et seq.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

the Factual Grounds section is not orthodox. That said, though pleading rules in judicial review, including requirements of precision and particularity, are strict and apply to lay litigants, and applicants are confined to their pleadings, Mr Foran should not be disadvantaged for his heterodoxy - as long as his pleading is, on a contextual, fair and reasonable reading, acceptably clear – e.g. St Audoen’s,290 100m Tall291and Croft.292 Though the Commission accepted that in principle,293 nonetheless as I thought some pleading objections overwrought, I think it will assist, even at the expense of repetition of certain factual matters, to set out certain of the pleaded material before moving to the specific grounds of challenge. In what follows here I set out what is, in my view, acceptably clear from the Amended Statement of Grounds.

111. Mr Foran pleads that

a. The Commission is reconsidering the N6 GCRR Scheme – which proposes to repurpose the Gort Na Bro Road to feed the N6 GCRR to the north. The 2018 N6 GCRR traffic forecasts are pleaded and the N6 GCRR Scheme intends that some proportion of this traffic will use Gort Na Bro Road.

b. The Impugned Decision discloses no assessment of the impacts, at this location – by which I understand him to refer to the roads abutting the Site - of o forecasted N6 GCRR traffic on traffic generally.

o the Proposed Development, on existing or proposed public transport and/or cycle traffic.294 c. The Inspector's report states that "The N6 GCRR does not include any public transport or cycle infrastructure at this location".295

d. At the location of the intended New Gort na Bro Junction, cars at present wait or park on both sides of the road at school pick-up times - leaving space only for one line of moving vehicles. 296 Mr Foran deposes297 that Gort Na Bro road is already congested its width does not cater for School parents dropping or picking up on both sides and for through traffic. So, he opines that significant peak hour queues are likely as a result of the combination of the traffic for each of the N6 GCRR, the retail park, the adjacent business parks and the School – which, he further opines, has implications for the operation of bus and cycle traffic in this area.

e. Under the NTA BusConnects network design, four bus services will pass through the Retail Park Road, the Link Road and Gort Na Bro Road. In effect, the New Gort na Bro Junction will become a public transport interchange for the western side of the city. 298

290 The Board of Management of St. Audoen’s National School v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 453 (High Court (Judicial Review), Simons J, 15 July 2021)

291 100 Meter Tall Group v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 42.

292 Croft v Dublin City Council [2025] IEHC 656.

293 Transcript p93.

Amended Statement of Grounds, §E, Part 1, §3.

295 Amended Statement of Grounds, §E, Part 1, §3.

296 Amended Statement of Grounds, §E, Part 1, §2.

297 Affidavit 10 October 2024.

Amended Statement of Grounds, §E, Part 3, §45.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

f. Regardless of the N6 GCRR proposals, the treatment of cycle traffic in the Proposed Development is deficient as it o is not in keeping with the applicable design guidance or the Climate Action Plans.299 o creates avoidable conflicts with pedestrians and avoidable delays and diversions for cyclists.

o relies on shared space arrangements at junctions and crossings.300 o provides cycle lanes on Gort Na Bro Road and the Link Road - but only two-way and on one side of the road. This neglects obvious cycling desire lines on the opposite sides of those roads - particularly for cyclists en route to other destinations.301 He inadmissibly deposes302 that the proposed cycle facilities are incomplete and fail to cater for obvious cycling desire lines.

o conflicts with design guidance, such as the NCM and the CDM, by incorporating shared facilities “generally disliked by both pedestrians and cyclists,” including toucan crossings at junctions.303

GROUND 1304 - REGARD TO SPATIAL PLANNING & NATIONAL ROADS GUIDELINES

The Impugned Decision of the Commission is invalid as it fails to have regard to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines, contrary to s.28(1) PDA 2000305 and/or to give reasons for not following those Guidelines. Those Guidelines state "Planning authorities should engage with applicants and their agents to address, as an integral element of their development proposals, potential negative impacts arising from existing or planned national roads. This could include mitigating impacts through appropriate design of buildings, landscaping features and site layout as part of the development proposal."306

112. In essence, Mr Foran alleges failure of regard to those Guidelines as they bear on the combined effect of the Proposed Development and the N6 GCRR on all forms of traffic in the area.

G1 PARTICULARS OF GROUND 1

113. I have set out above Mr Foran’s pleas that regardless of the N6 GCRR, the Proposed Development’s Junction design is deficient in its provision for cyclists; as to the alleged congestive effect of traffic feeding the N6 GCRR combined with other traffic; that the Inspector's report states that "The N6 GCRR does not include any public transport or cycle infrastructure at this location”; that he can find no discussion/assessment in the TTA or in the Inspector’s report of impacts, if the N6 GCRR is approved, at the Site/Location.

299 Amended Statement of Grounds, §E, Part 3, §55.

300 Amended Statement of Grounds §E(1)(5).

301 Amended Statement of Grounds §E(1)(5).

Affidavit 10 October 2024.

303 Amended Statement of Grounds §E(1)(6).

304 I will set out the Core Ground in bold type. I amend the text somewhat for brevity and clarity, without changing meaning.

305 The Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended).

P.29 at §3.7

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

114. Otherwise, the Particulars of Ground 1 consist of citation of s.28 PDA 2000 as requiring regard to Guidelines and of §3.7 of the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines – “Avoiding Adverse Impacts from Existing and Future Roads” – which requires planning authorities to engage with planning permission applicants “to address, as an integral element of their development proposals, potential negative impacts arising from existing or planned national roads.”

G1 MR FORAN’S POSITION

115. Failure to have regard to relevant “s.28 guidelines”307 is ground for quashing planning permissions: Cork County Council.308 The Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines are s.28 guidelines which require regard to traffic “arising from” existing or proposed national roads. The Commission failed to consider

• traffic impacts “arising from”, (not merely “on”), the N6 GCRR Scheme.

• traffic growth forecasts which should have been available to them. Therefore the planning permission should be quashed for failure to consider relevant matters.309

116. The N6 GCRR Scheme proposes to repurpose Gort na Bro Road, as a feeder road - without modification to provide active travel infrastructure such as cycle lanes He cites the 2018 traffic forecasts for the proposed N6 GCRR and its proposed feeder roads, including Gort na Bro Road. The Guidelines make those forecasts relevant to the Commission’s consideration of the Proposed Development. He cites the 2018 N6 GCRR traffic forecasts and says that some part of that forecasted traffic will use the Gort Na Bro Road near the Site and interact with cyclists using what he considers carriageways both unnecessarily shared and inadequate.310 Mr Foran essentially deposes311 that while the Commission considered the impact of the Proposed Development on the N6 GCRR Scheme, it did not consider the impact of the Proposed Development, combined with impact of traffic generated by the N6 GCRR, on traffic, including cyclists using the Gort Na Bro Road - contrary to §3.7 of the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines312 and to s.28(1) PDA 2000.

G1 ACP’S POSITION

117. The Commission notes that the pleaded complaint “unsurprisingly but impermissibly” relies only on §3.7 of the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines and that, in that light, the Amended Statement of

307 Guidelines issued by the Minister under s.28 PDA 2000.

308 Cork County Council v Minister for Local Government, Planning and others [2021] IEHC 683. Mr Foran cites also White v Dublin City Council [2004] 1

I.R. 545, Usk District Residents Association v An Bord Pleanála, Ireland and Others [2009] IEHC 346.

309 Foran Submissions 20 November 2025.

310 Foran Affidavit 10 October 2024 §17 & 118 N6 GCRR Planning files Appendix A.6.1 Phase 3 Traffic Modelling Report.

311 Affidavit 10 October 2024 §19.

See above.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

Grounds alleges that s.28 PDA required the Commission “in so far as practicable, to have regard for” those guidelines – which it had failed to do. Despite the paucity of detail pleaded, Mr Foran impermissibly complains in Submissions that this ground is about the N6 GRR – Carvill.313

118. This pleading objection aside, ACP says that there is no substance to Mr Foran’s contention that §3.7 of the Guidelines required the Commission to consider the Proposed Development by reference to the N6 GRR and that the contention is factually unsustainable. Mr Foran fails to refer to the following:

a. The Council’s first reason for refusal was premised on the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines and the N6 GRR. The Inspector, with whom the Commission agreed, addresses this reason314 and, by clear implication, the Guidelines insofar relevant to the issue before the Commission. The Commission thus had regard to the Guidelines - Friends of Killymooney Lough.315 Mr Foran’s assertion that the Commission, making its presumptively valid decision, failed to have regard to the Guidelines, is not borne out in fact.

b. The evidence before the Commission demonstrated that Glenveagh actively engaged with the N6 GRR National Roads Project Team to address the interaction of the N6 GRR with the Proposed Development in the manner envisaged by the cited Guideline extract.316 c. The Inspector’s Report refers to

▪ the “documented engagement with the National Roads Project Office (N6 Project Team) and the extensive alterations made to the design of the proposed development at Further Information Stage.”317

▪ the fact that N6 Project Team had stated318 that the Proposed Development 'is not in material conflict with the road project.”319

d. Mr Gorman’s first Affidavit320 also summarises the consideration of the N6 GRR in the planning application documents and engagement with the N6 Project Team in designing the Proposed Development.

119. Mr Foran’s vague complaints of failure to consider traffic forecasts regarding the N6 GRR are nonexpert assertions not objectively supported by the evidence before the Commission. He makes no effort to explain how his complaint impugns the evidence before the Commission or the Commission’s conclusions. Nor

313 Carvill v Dublin City Council [2025] IECA 84 §151 & §166.

314 Inspector’s Report, §7.5.

315 Friends of Killymooney Lough v An Coimisiún Pleanála [2025] IEHC 407 (§115 et seq).

316 see, inter alia, Developer’s DBFL Technical Note prepared in response to the Council’s request for further information (Exhibit PD1, Tab 20.1) and

appeal submission to the Commission (Exhibit PD1, Tab 25.

317 Inspector’s Report §7.5.7.

318 on 25th September 2023.

319 §7.5.11-12.

§10 et seq.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

does he demonstrate how such forecasts allegedly undermine the information in the EIAR or in the TTA or the Commission’s conclusions.

G1 GLENVEAGH’S POSITION

120. Glenveagh says that Mr Foran’s position on Ground 1 in the Statement of Case321 impermissibly does not reflect his pleaded case. His pleaded case is that the Commission failed to have regard to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines and/or failed to give reasons for not following those Guidelines. Neither complaint is correct. His pleaded particulars of Ground 1 comprise three paragraphs (three of which are quotes). The only cited aspect of the Guidelines is part of §3.7. The Ground is not adequately particularised.

121. In its written submissions, Glenveagh says that complaints of impacts of the Proposed Development cumulatively with the N6 GCRR are premature - they will be considered in the pending application for approval of the N6 GCRR.

122. Glenveagh says that the Commission in fact had regard to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines. TII had raised those Guidelines its submission to the Council322 and the Guidelines underlay the first reason for the Council’s refusing permission to Glenveagh. They were therefore central in Glenveagh’s Appeal.323 Yet, as seen above, the Council’s conclusion was based on an error in its consideration of TII’s observations. The Council planner’s report had cited a TII submission as to a different planning application.324 This error was addressed in Glenveagh’s Appeal. The Inspector found that reasoning by the Council to have been erroneous and had rejected the argument that the Proposed Development was not consistent with the Guidelines.325 The Commission’s Direction confirms that in making the Impugned Decision it had considered the “submissions on file and the Inspector’s report”.

123. As to the complaint that the Commission failed to give reasons for not complying with the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines, Glenveagh says that Mr Foran has failed to identify any noncompliance with those Guidelines for which reasons could have been given and so has failed to particularise this ground of challenge. The pleaded case, as to §3.7 of the Guidelines, fails to disclose the basis of the alleged non-compliance.

124. On the facts, according to Glenveagh, no non-compliance with §3.7 of those Guidelines is evident. Glenveagh put to the Council and the Commission significant information as to existing and proposed

The joint Statement of Case required by Practice Direction HC126.

322 as summarised at §3.3.2 of the Inspector’s Report

323 Glenveagh’s Appeal §5.12.

324 Inspector’s Report §7.5.2.

Inspector’s Report §7.5.1.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

transport infrastructure, which the Inspector and the Commission considered. Glenveagh cites the Inspector’s Report as to ‘Traffic Impact’,326 Chapter 13 of the EIAR,327 the TTA, the RRfI, the DBFL Roads Report dated 23 August 2023 and DBFL’s Technical Note, which accompanied Glenveagh’s Appeal.

125. Glenveagh says that any complaint of no attempt to review or consider N6 GCRR traffic forecasts is

(i) not pleaded and (ii) fails to engage with the material before the Commission, including that which demonstrates that there is no material conflict with the N6 GCRR.

126. Glenveagh says that §§2 and 3 of Part E(1) of the Amended Statement of Grounds complain that the Commission did not consider (i) the impacts of the N6 GCRR for the operation of traffic on the Site of the Proposed Development or (ii) the impact on cycling if the N6 GCRR is approved. The height of Mr Foran’s pleaded case alleges deficiencies in the assessment of traffic and transport impacts (including impacts on cycling) from the Proposed Development, having regard to the proposed N6 GCRR. However, this complaint fails to engage with the material before, and the assessment done by, the Inspector and the Commission, including the TTA, the RRfI, the DBFL Road’s Report and the DBFL Technical Note.

127. Glenveagh says that the impacts of the N6 GCRR, as relevant to the Proposed Development, were considered in the application documents. The TTA network analysis takes account of the proposed N6 GCRR. The TTA Appendix A considers both the existing and future public transport provision. The Inspector’s Report

• considered the traffic impacts of the Proposed Development. (The cited content states that the TTA “found that due to the nature of the works associated with the proposals, including the upgrade of the existing network and the provision of new routes, including enhanced pedestrian, and cycling infrastructure, the network can accommodate the increased traffic associated with the project.” 328)

• concludes that the Proposed Development supports the delivery of the N6 GCRR.329

128. Mr Foran’s submissions, Glenveagh says, do not specifically address §§E(1(5&6)) of the Amended Statement of Grounds.330 Glenveagh asserts that “If he is still proceeding with those grounds” (he did), it is Glenveagh’s position that

• §5 is an impermissible merits-based attack on the Impugned Decision as to the design of the cycle facilities and absent any engagement with the material before the Commission.

326 Inspector’s Report §7.5.

327 including at §13.1.2.1.1 - §13.1.2.1.2.

328 in particular, at §18.12.2 of her Report.

329 in particular at §7.5.1-§7.5.12 of her Report.

330 I have adverted to this content above. §§E(1(5&6)) assert that the proposed cycling facilities

• are flawed as 1) they rely on shared space arrangements at the junctions and crossings and 2) they are two-way cycle facilities on only one

side of Gort Na Bro Road and the Link Road. – which neglects obvious cycling desire lines on the opposite side of those roads particularly for cycle

traffic en route to other destinations.

• conflict with the principles expressed in the applicable design guidance such as the NCM and the CDM. The CDM states "As shared facilities

are generally disliked by both pedestrians and cyclists, signal controlled junctions with toucan crossings should only be used in exceptionally

constrained environments or as part of an interim cycle scheme where a full junction redesign is not being undertaken."

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

• §6 in its complaint that the cycling facilities conflict with the CDM is premised on a misinterpretation of the CDM. The NTA, Inspector and Commission considered that the Proposed Development aligned with the CDM. Mr Foran has advanced no complaint to undermine those conclusions.

I pause here to note that §§E(1(5&6)) of the Amended Statement of Grounds are an element of Mr Foran’s unorthodox approach to pleading. This content is in the “core grounds” part of Amended Statement of Grounds but does not state legal grounds per se. Rather it appears to consist in what Mr Foran considered to be core factual assertions and I have regarded them as factual particulars.

G1: DECISION – PLEADINGS, PREMATURITY & REGARD

129. With one exception, I reject the pleading objections. Reading the Statement of Grounds as a whole and fairly, Mr Foran’s pleaded case, as subsequently argued, was adequately clear, even if arranged somewhat idiosyncratically. Some joining of dots was required - but well within the capabilities of and what may reasonably be expected of the Commission’s advisors. The Commission’s snide phrase “unsurprisingly but impermissibly” is acceptable as to the second descriptor but unnecessary, irrelevant and unworthy as to the first. Agree with him or not in substance and law, and whether or not he actually meets his pleading obligations, Mr Foran, a lay litigant, is clearly entirely as genuine in his anxiety to comply with his procedural obligations as he is in his substantive advocacy of active travel.

130. Mr Foran made it adequately clear in his Statement of Grounds that, in essence, he alleged failure by the Commission, by reference to the §3.7 of the Guidelines, to consider the cumulative effect on traffic, including public transport and cyclists, on the local road network, of three traffic elements. They are, respectively: the existing traffic on the local road network including its growth prospects; additional traffic expected on that network by reason of the repurposing of Gort Na Bro Road to service the N6 GCRR; and additional traffic to be generated by the Proposed Development. As to the traffic forecasts and albeit not specifically as to Ground 1, Mr Foran explicitly pleaded that “The ring road traffic forecasts suggest from 5,300 AADT to 6,377 AADT here with 3% HGVs in all cases. It is the intent of the ring road project that some proportion of these vehicle movements will pass along Gort Na Bro Road.”

131. The exception – the pleading objection I do uphold – is Mr Foran’s submission that the Commission’s alleged failure to consider relevant material such as the N6 GCRR traffic forecasts represents a failure of EIA and renders the decision irrational. Ground 1 pleads neither failure of EIA nor irrationality.

132. Glenveagh’s written submission that complaints of cumulative impacts of the N6 GCRR with the Proposed Development are premature – that they will be considered in the pending application for approval of the N6 GCRR – was underdeveloped, both in written and oral submissions. Viewing the matter through the lens of EIA: first, in the present application the Commission was required to assess only the significant effects of the Proposed Development; second, it was obliged to consider the significant effects of the

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

Proposed Development considered cumulatively but only with “other existing and/or approved projects”;331 third, the N6 GCRR is not an approved project. So, as a matter of EIA, the effects of the Proposed Development were not required to be considered cumulatively with the N6 GCRR.

133. However, the EIA Directive does not limit the extent of inquiry into the statutory subject matter of proper planning and sustainable development. Member States can prescribe wider inquiry than EIA requires and it is easy to envisage that they may often be wise to do so. It is through the wider-angle lens of the Guidelines that the present issue falls to be considered. As has been seen, it envisages planning applicants addressing “as an integral element of their development proposals, potential negative impacts arising from existing or planned national roads.”332 It seems to me that the concept of “planned national roads” is not limited to national roads “approved” within the meaning of the EIA Directive. Rather, it refers to national roads for which the responsible public authorities have laid more or less definite plans. For example, the practice in development plans of identifying and protecting road reservations, even if only indicative routes, is well-established and it clearly makes sense that developments in the vicinity future-proof themselves as reasonable against the effects of being located close to a national road. And the Guidelines envisage protection of alignments for future national road projects.333 Also, the pleaded words of §3.7 of the Guidelines must be read in context: Chapter 3 of the Guidelines relates to “Development Management and Roads” and §3.7 relates to “Avoiding Adverse Impacts from Existing and Future Roads”. §3.7 starts with the sentence: “National roads can potentially produce significant adverse effects that extend beyond the roads concerned”. So, §3.7 clearly encompasses off-site effects caused by planned national roads – not merely, if at all, effects caused by proposed developments on national roads.

134. Further, it bears observing that the submission that consideration of the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development need not, as a matter of principle as to proper planning and sustainable development, even if not required in EIA, have encompassed effects by the Proposed Development and the N6 GCRR on the local road network, sits ill with

• the acceptance, evident in the Impugned Decision, that potential effects on the N6 GCRR were a legitimate matter of assessment of the cumulative effects of both projects.

• the fact that the upgrade of the local road network, even if it does not comprise national roads, is itself part of the N6 GCRR Scheme. It would be strange if effects on that network were not comprehended by §3.7.

• the general principle that consideration of the proper planning and sustainable development should be comprehensive.

135. The Commission’s submission that there is no substance to Mr Foran’s contention that §3.7 of the Guidelines required the Commission to consider the Proposed Development by reference to the N6 GRR and that the contention is factually unsustainable, is a little unclear. I can think of no good reason – textual,

331 EIA Directive Art 4(3), Annex III, 1(b).

332 Emphasis added.

§2.9.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

contextual or purposive – more to the point, none have been suggested - why §3.7 should be read as limited to effects only on the functioning and operation of national roads.

136. For the avoidance of doubt, the N6 GRR being a “planned national road” within the meaning of §3.7 of the Guidelines, I reject any general proposition in principle (if intended by the Commission) that §3.7 could not require regard to the possibility of cumulative impact of a proposed national road and a proposed development on the functioning and operation of existing or proposed national roads, on the proposed development itself, or on other roads (including, but not limited to, roads in the vicinity of the proposed development) or indeed generally.

137. This observation can be put another way. Compliance with the duty of regard requires – is premised on - correct interpretation of the document to which regard must be had – Coyne.334 If it were shown that the Commission had misinterpreted §3.7 of the Guidelines as invariably requiring regard only to impacts on national roads, a failure of regard might, on the facts of a particular case, be established.

138. Accordingly, for the purposes of these proceedings, I reject the submission that consideration of the cumulative effects of the Proposed Development and the N6 GCRR on the proper planning and sustainable development of the area would have been premature. However, I caution that

• This conclusion relates to relevance as denoted by the Guidelines’ concept of planned national roads

- not relevance as denoted by the EIA Directive concept of approved projects.

• As argument of the issue was, in my view, underdeveloped, I do not rule out that a different

conclusion might be reached in another case.

• It must always be remembered, even when considering cumulative impact, that what is at issue is effect of specifically the proposed development under consideration in the planning application.

139. The Commission is on potentially firmer ground in its submission, particular to the circumstances of this case, that the contention of failure of regard is factually unsustainable.

140. As to the substance of this plea, the Commission was not obliged to comply with the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines. The Commission, correctly in reliance on the Cork County Council case,335 submits that to “have regard to” means:

“…… looking at the matter concerned, and factoring in its relevance, if any, and weight, if any as those matters appear to the decision-maker. …….. Once the decision-maker has looked at the matter, its

334 §20, citing Redmond v An Bord Pleanála [2020] IEHC 151 §94. “A decision-maker cannot be said to have properly had regard to objectives or policies

which it has misunderstood.”; Killegland Estates Limited v Meath County Council [2022] IEHC 393, regard “presupposes a correct understanding”. Tesco

Stores Limited v Dundee City Council [2012] UKSC 13 “a planning authority must proceed upon a proper understanding of the development plan … the

planning authority is required by statute to have regard to the provisions of the development plan: it cannot have regard to the provisions of the plan if

it fails to understand them”.

Cork County Council v The Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage [2021] IEHC 683 §57(i)-(ii).

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

determination as to relevance if any is subject to review for legality, and its determination as to weight if any is normally subject to review for unreasonableness only. The weight to be attached to a particular piece of material is peculiarly one for the decision-marker…”336

141. Mr Foran has not shown that the Commission failed to have had regard to those Guidelines. The unusual facts make such a failure of regard highly improbable.

a. As Glenveagh observes, the TTA assumes that the N6 GCRR Scheme, including its aspects local to the Site, will be in place and its network analysis is based, inter alia, on that assumption. Thereby, local effects of the N6 GCRR are considered.

b. TII had in fact objected to the Proposed Development explicitly by reference to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines – albeit in unhelpfully uninformative terms.

c. Glenveagh’s advisors had in fact engaged with the TII Galway National Roads Project Office N6 Project Team as envisaged by §3.7 of the Guidelines. And that liaison had informed the design changes made in the RRfI and the N6 Project Team’s confirmation thereafter that the Proposed Development was not in material conflict with the N6 GCRR design”.337 d. The Council’s planner’s report had very notably cited a TII observation as to an entirely different development but in terms which had also explicitly cited the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines.

e. That citation had at least significantly informed the Council’s Refusal Reason #1 which explicitly asserted that standards were not in accordance with those set in the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines.

f. Glenveagh expounded on this error in its Appeal and explicitly set out the relevant text from the Council’s Planner’s report, including its explicit reference to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines.

g. The Inspector explicitly cited TII’s actual observation citing the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines and the Council’s refusal reason, citing the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines and accepted Glenveagh’s view of the Council’s error as to the TII’s observations.338 h. The Commission in its Impugned Decision did not explicitly record its regard to those Guidelines. But it did cite its regard to “the submissions and observations received, and the report of the Inspector” – which, as has been seen, had cited the Guidelines in a context of error by the Council by which the Commission must have been struck.

336 Emphasis added.

337 Inspector’s report p14. See also Mr Gorman’s affidavit sworn 30 September 2025 §10 et seq.

§3.3.2 & §7.5.1&2.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

i. Further, the Commission explicitly took the Impugned Decision generally in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendation.

In those circumstances disregard by the Commission of those Guidelines would almost have had to have been wilful. It is certainly, and at very least, improbable. And that suffices to dismiss the assertion.

142. In my view, this case falls within the ratio of Rana.339 The Commission has implicitly asserted its regard to the Spatial Planning and National Roads Guidelines and Mr Foran bore the onus of disproving such regard. Mr Foran has failed to prove failure of regard to those Guidelines.

Dressed up Challenge to Merits

143. Lest, I am wrong in that regard, I return to my analysis above under the heading “Irrationality, Regard, Merits & Mr Foran’s Essential Case”. Ground 1 is, in my view, a dressed up challenge to the merits of the Impugned Decision and, moreover, is based on inadmissible expert evidence of a merely hypothetical risk. There is no reason to suspect that, considered as an effect of the Proposed Development, the nominal effect of increase in traffic on local roads by reason of the Proposed Development (an idea which I confess seems to me counterintuitive given the size of the Proposed Development - but which is the gravamen of the only admissible evidence before me) will materially contribute, cumulatively with other traffic, to a significant adverse effect on local traffic conditions, whether of cyclists or others. And, as I have noted earlier, the Commission’s order explicitly records its conclusion that the Proposed Development would be “acceptable in terms of traffic and pedestrian safety and convenience” – which I have read as including the safety and convenience of cycle traffic.

144. Further there is the N6 Project Team’s confirmation that the Proposed Development was not in material conflict with the N6 GCRR design. Reading the Impugned Decision as valid, not invalid where possible, it must be presumed that the Commission understood this opinion as relating both to the N6 GCRR design generally but also to the N6 GCRR Scheme design as it specifically related to the roads around the Site

– the Gort na Bro Road and the New Link Road. The RRfI makes clear that Glenveagh liaised with the N6 Project Team on these specific issues to maximise the Proposed Development’s conformity with the elements of the N6 GCRR local to the Site. It can only be presumed that N6 Project Team, being intimately familiar with and concerned with that very project, including the operation of the roads local to the Site, were aware of and had considered, in expressing their view, of the relevant AADT forecasts for that project. To this, we can add the NTA’s confirmation of conformity with the CDM. I cannot see that the Commission was not entitled to accept this evidence.

145. Mr Foran has failed to evidentially establish a legal error meriting certiorari for any failure of regard to the Guidelines.

See above.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

G1: DECISION – REASONS, DISCRETION & OVERALL DECISION

146. Leaving aside that it was not obliged to “follow” the Guidelines, as there is in my view no admissible evidence that the Commission did not do so there is accordingly no factual basis for quashing the Impugned

Decision for failure to give reasons for not doing so.

147. In any event, in Cork County Council,340 Humphreys J rejected the notion that that a duty of regard imposes duty to give reasons for disagreeing with that to which regard was had (such as a s.28 guideline) – even where that to which regard was had uses strident, mandatory language.

148. Accordingly, I refuse certiorari quashing the Impugned Decision for failure to give reasons for not following the Guidelines.

149. Finally, if I am wrong in any of the foregoing, I would as a matter of my discretion dismiss Ground 1 because,

• however low the relevant threshold, there is no admissible evidence of the reality of risk of an actual significant adverse effect – on cyclists or otherwise. Mr Foran’s complaint in Ground 1 is hypothetical and theoretical absent admissible evidence to support it.

• as I have observed earlier in this judgment, the substantive subject-matter of Mr Foran’s complaint in Ground 1 could and should have been, but was not, brought to the attention of the Commission by Mr Foran.

150. For these reasons, Ground 1 is dismissed.

Cork County Council v Minister for Housing, Ireland and the Attorney General, [2021] IEHC 683, [2021] 11 JIC 0502 §44.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

GROUND 2: INCONSISTENCY WITH CLIMATE ACTS & CLIMATE ACTION PLANS341

The Impugned Decision is invalid as inconsistent with the Climate Act 2021 and the Climate Action Plans and/or as failing to give reasons for not addressing the plans. The 2023 Climate Plan

• calls for high quality active travel infrastructure.342

• states a need for significantly improving the attractiveness, capacity and frequency of public transport.343

• states a need for accessibility that requires permeable paths and street networks that allow users to move through an area directly and via many different routes.344

• identifies as a key supporting element the prioritisation and reallocation of existing road space towards public transport and active travel.345

CLIMATE ACTS & CLIMATE ACTION PLANS

151. Sections 3 and 4 of the 2015 Climate Act as amended by the 2021 Climate Act346 set a “national climate objective" of transition to a climate resilient, biodiversity rich, environmentally sustainable and climate neutral economy by 2050. To that end they require, inter alia, adoption and annual updating by the Government of a Climate Action Plan. That plan must be consistent with the Government’s “Carbon Budget Programme”347 and “set out a “roadmap of actions”, including sector-specific actions and measures to support Government policy on climate change.

152. Section 15(1) of the 2015 Act, as amended by the 2021 Act, provides, in effect and inter alia, that the Commission

“….. shall, in so far as practicable, perform its functions in a manner consistent with —

(a) the most recent approved climate action plan, …..

(d) the furtherance of the national climate objective, and

(e) the objective of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the effects of climate change in the State.”

The 2021 Act amendment was important. Until it, the s.15 obligation was a “have regard” one. It is now an obligation of consistency as far as practicable. As Humphreys J says in Coolglass,348 s.15 is now in “compliance language” – not “have regard to” language.

341 I will set out the Core Ground in bold type. I amend the text somewhat for brevity and clarity, without changing meaning.

342 §15.3.4

343 §15.3.4.

344 §15.3.2.

§15.3.3.

346 Climate Action and Low Carbon Development Act 2015 and Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Act 2021. Where useful, I

will refer to the 2015 and 2021 Acts collectively as “the Climate Acts”.

347 By s.1 of the 2015 Act "carbon budget" means the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions permitted during the budget period.

Coolglass Windfarm Limited v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 1.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

G2: MR FORAN’S POSITION

153. Mr Foran’s Particulars of Ground 2 recite various elements of the Climate Action Plan 2023. They do not state in what respects the Impugned Decision is inconsistent with that plan. His Factual Particulars plead absence of assessment or discussion in the Inspector's Report of the Climate Acts and Climate Action Plans or their implications for the treatment of active travel or public transport in the vicinity.

154. Mr Foran submits that, a. By s.15 of the Climate Act 2015 the Commission must exercise its powers in a manner compliant as far as practicable with the climate objectives - Coolglass.

b. The Climate Acts and Climate Action Plans mandate promotion of alternatives to private cars.

c. Inconsistently with the Commission’s duties under s.15 of the Climate Act 2015 as elucidated in Coolglass, by the Impugned Decision it approved proposed road treatments objectively in direct conflict with the objectives in the Climate Action Plans for the prioritisation of active travel as an alternative to private car use. That is so as the Commission has endorsed a design that d. Is in conflict with the CDM in that the cycling facilities are discontinuous, incomplete, inconvenient for some users, create avoidable conflicts with pedestrians, envisages toucan crossings at junctions (which the CDM describes as “Not appropriate for new development schemes with segregated cycle infrastructure”349) - and objectively fail the CDM requirement of directness.

e. Thereby “assumes” that cyclists will not use the cycling facilities and will instead use vehicular carriageways such that cyclists will be mixed with motor traffic on certain sections of road.

f. Though providing for that mixed traffic, objectively reduces the road space currently available to cyclists:

o On the new Link Road, the traffic lanes will be reduced from 4.6m (currently350) to 3m.

o The Commission’s direction that the roads comply with DMURS suggests that the Gort Na Bro Road traffic lanes will be reduced from 3.65 m to 3 or 3.2 m.

g. Thereby exacerbates potential for conflict between cyclists and motor vehicles (particularly buses).

h. Thereby adopts a road design objectively inconsistent with the Climate Acts and Climate Action Plans and the decision should be quashed on these grounds.

349 CDM p 248: TL506 Signal-Controlled Junction incorporating Toucan Crossings.

350 I understand this to relate to the Link Road which at present runs South east from the Retail Park Roundabout to the WDR/Gort na Bro Road

Roundabout. See transcript pp 26 & 27.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

G2: ACP’S POSITION

155. The Commission says that Mr Foran’s pleaded case is not properly particularised and should be dismissed accordingly. Mr Foran pleads extracts from the Climate Action Plan 2023, but makes no attempt in his Statement of Grounds to engage with the evidence which was before the Commission, the Inspector’s Report or the Commission’s Decision. He does not particularise how the Commission has acted inconsistently with s.15 of the 2015 Act.

156. The Commission says that Mr Foran in substance, complains about the merits of the Proposed Development (in particular the design approach) and does so without reference to the evidence before the Commission or the terms of the Commission’s Decision. His complaints of inconsistency with the Climate Action Plan are abstract and are not adequately or evidentially advanced and should be dismissed. In this respect and inter alia:

a. Of the EIAR, o Chapter 2 outlines the relevant policy - including policies made pursuant to s.15 of the 2015 Act (as does the Commission’s Decision).

o Chapter 5 assesses traffic impacts in assessing impacts on population and human health.

o Chapter 9 identifies the potential climate impacts of the Proposed Development – expressly citing the Climate Action Plan and the 2015 Act.

b. Mr Foran did not in his submissions to the Council and the Commission raise, and has not raised in these proceedings, any issue with Chapter 9 (including by expert evidence).

c. The Inspector outlines the policy context and considers potential climate impacts. Noting Mr Foran’s case to focus (although it is not clear) on cycling/low-carbon transport, the Inspector said:

o “… The proposed development includes for the upgrade and provision of additional cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and bicycle parking facilities. The improved pedestrian and cycling infrastructure will provide alternative modes of transport for those living and working locally, which will reduce the dependency on vehicular transport and associated greenhouse gas emissions”.351 o the “layout and design of the scheme demonstrates significant consideration to its context and receiving environment. The pedestrian and cycle routes and public transport stops enable local journeys to be carried out via sustainable travel modes”. 352 d. Mr Foran ignores that the Commission’s Order records that it considered the Climate Action Plan 2023 in making its decision.

351 inter alia, §18.7.5 §7.4.5

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

G2: GLENVEAGH’S POSITION

157. The particulars of Ground 2 consist of quotes from CAP 23353 as to active travel and bus connections. The Commission clearly considered CAP 23. The pleas disclose no basis on which inconsistency is alleged between the Proposed Development and CAP 23. So Ground 2 should be dismissed.

158. The plea that the Commission did not consider CAP 23 is contradicted on the face of the Impugned

Decision. It records that “[i]n coming to its decision, the Board had regard to the following: (i) the provisions of the Climate Action Plan 2023”.354 Given the materials then before the Commission (including the EIAR), the Commission properly discharged its functions pursuant to s.15 of the 2015 Act. Mr Foran has not proved breach of s.15 of the 2015 Act.

G2: DECISION

Initial Observations

159. I observe that, as noted above, Mr Foran’s “assumption” of mixed traffic on the vehicular carriageway, which he attributes to the Proposed Development is based on his inadmissible opinion that the cycle lane provision is defective such that, in material numbers, cyclists will eschew it in favour of cycling on the vehicular carriageways. It is fair to describe this as a lynchpin of his case, the removal of which would have the consequences usual to the removal of a lynchpin.

160. Mr Foran next alleges “removal” of current road space for cyclists. That allegation is based,

• First, on that assumption of which there is no admissible evidence – that cyclists will, in material numbers, use the vehicular carriageways.

• Second, on the assertion that the traffic lanes on the existing link road355 are 4.6m wide and allow buses and cycles to pass each other, whereas the DMURS-complaint 3m lanes in the new Link Road and Gort Na Bro Road will not allow buses and cycles to pass each other.

161. It will be immediately seen that all these allegations fail as based both on inadmissible opinion evidence and on impugning DMURS – the challenge to which is no longer in the case. In any event, they are based on further inadmissible evidence that DMURS adopts “cyclist-hostile traffic calming”. All this is in the face of Mr Gorman’s admissible expert evidence that

• the proposed cycle lane provision is not defective.

353 Climate Action Plan 2023. I accept that Climate Action Plan 2021 had been supplanted by CAP 23 at the time of the Impugned Decision and is

irrelevant. However nothing practical turns on the point.

354 Emphasis added.

From the Retail Park Roundabout to the WDR/Gort na Bro Roundabout, bisecting the Site.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

• cyclists will use them.

• the vehicular lanes in question meet or exceed DMURS-required widths.

• not merely DMURS356 but even the CDM357 (with cyclists in mind) supports the traffic-calming effectiveness of narrow lanes. Indeed, even were Mr Foran’s evidence on these issues admissible, the result would be no more than a merits-based disagreement which could not be resolved save on cross-examination and which, even if resolved in Mr Foran’s favour, could not establish illegality. Though it is almost otiose to say so, assuming the resolution of that disagreement could theoretically establish illegality, as Mr Foran bears the onus of proof it would anyway, absent cross-examination, be resolved against him.

162. The position here echoes that in Massey,358 in which Humphreys J said that

• Non-experts and the court can discern a flaw on the face of the material of an impugned decision – the type of flaw which can be discerned without special knowledge beyond a pedestrian understanding of scientific concepts. For “special knowledge” we can read “expertise”.

• The applicant had not evidentially demonstrated a flaw not on the face of the material - “The applicant’s non-expert assertions do not constitute such evidence and in any event are contested, so in the absence of cross-examination the applicant couldn’t succeed anyway.”

Pleadings & Recitation by Commission of Regard to CAP

163. For reasons similar to those for my rejection of other pleading objections, I reject the pleading objections – they require an unfair reading of Mr Foran’s admittedly idiosyncratic Statement of Grounds. Nonetheless, they made his case on Ground 2 acceptably clear.

164. I am not impressed by the Commission’s and Glenveagh’s reliance on the recitation in the Impugned

Decision that “[i]n coming to its decision, the Board had regard to ….. the provisions of the Climate Action Plan 2023”. If anything, given the clear and extensive caselaw as to the distinction between obligations of regard and compliance and the Commission’s inevitably deep knowledge of that distinction (in judicial review it routinely invokes the distinction), the recitation tells appreciably against the Impugned Decision. It suggests that the Commission merely had “regard” to the Plan rather than that it had, as s.15 requires, performed its functions in a manner, in so far as practicable, consistent therewith. That the recitation appears in a long list of matters in respect of many of which the Commission’s duty was merely one of regard amplifies the impression.

DMURS §4.1.2 & 4.4.1 Carriageway Widths.

357 §4.2.9.2.

358 Massey v An Bord Pleanála & Curns Energy #2, [2025] IEHC 206, [2025] 4 JIC 1105 §94 & 95.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

Practicability of Consistency - Coolglass & Mount Salus

165. Coolglass359

• Held that the 2021 amendment of the Climate Act 2015 imposes “sweeping obligations across the

public sector”. More specifically, it is authority for an imperative reading of s.15(1) of the Climate Act 2015 as

amended – on the basis that it is the “logical implication” in practice of “the State’s recognition of the

climate emergency as the supreme challenge of our time”.

• Accordingly rejected a “watered-down” interpretation of s.15(1) and the State’s plea in that case for a “wide margin of appreciation” – which Humphreys J considered would reduce “the compliance language of s.15 to something functionally indistinguishable from a mere have-regard-to obligation”. He held that s.15 does not impose “merely a souped-up “have-regard-to” obligation”.360 “It imposes an obligation to act consistently with the climate plans and objectives referred to in s. 15 insofar as practicable.” The Commission must act in conformity with the objectives set out in s.15(1) - including with the Climate Plan - unless it is impracticable to do so.

• He held that compliance with s.15 “means exercising discretionary and evaluative powers in whatever way is most likely to be consistent with the relevant plans and objectives.”

166. I observe that, read in isolation, the obligation Humphreys J identified - to exercise “discretionary and evaluative powers in whatever way is most likely to be consistent with the relevant plans and objectives”

- reads as all but universal and absolute and consistent with the imposition of “sweeping obligations”. On any reading, the obligation is striking and demanding.

167. But it cannot be read in isolation. Nor did Humphreys J intend that it be so read. His decision is more nuanced. He noted that the s.15 compliance criterion is of practicability and clearly recognised that it as a qualifier of the duty of compliance. However demanding that criterion, it falls short of a universally absolute

obligation – falls short, indeed, of a duty of compliance “as far as possible”. Significantly, he observed that

“there will be many developments that have no discernible impact one way or the other on climate goals – the board is quite free to continue business as usual in those areas”. In asking whether impact is “discernible”, it is important to recollect that Humphreys J rejected “the drop-in-the-ocean fallacy”. Nonetheless, remembering that GHG361 emission reduction (by such as renewable energy use, insulation, BER ratings and many other means) and climate adaptation provisions are now invariable features of virtually any new development – even of the most modest dwellings – the observation that “many developments” have no discernible impact on climate goals is striking.

359 §116 et seq.

360 §102.

GreenHouse Gas.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

168. It is important to recollect the factual context in Coolglass. It concerned a refusal of planning permission for a wind farm. Humphreys J uncontroversially considered that “renewable energy provision is an irreplaceable part of sustainable development”. And he was at pains

“to emphasise that the obligation to use discretionary powers favourably to renewable energy infrastructure does not automatically translate into an obligation to refuse permission for developments that cause emissions. ………. In other words, it doesn’t automatically follow from a prorenewables interpretation that there must be, say, an anti-cheese factory interpretation, an anti-data centre interpretation or an anti-LNG storage interpretation. The trade-offs and displacement effects would need to be considered.”

169. An appeal in Coolglass is pending before the Supreme Court as raising, inter alia, “very important issues regarding (in particular) the extent of the obligation imposed by s. 15(1) of the 2015 Act (as amended) on bodies such as planning authorities and … the Board … with potentially far-reaching consequences and … of systemic importance for the entire planning process.” 362 However, I consider that this case can be decided on the law as it stands today.

170. I mention Mount Salus363 for its analysis of the meaning of, and the caselaw bearing on the meaning

of, the word “practicable”, its cognates, and phrases in which they typically appear. It is impractical to recite

that analysis here. It attempts to demonstrates that the cases are not entirely consistent - beyond the propositions that, generally, the phrase “as far as practicable”

• lies somewhere on the spectrum between “as far as is reasonable” and “as far as possible” – being more demanding than the former and less so than the latter

• imposes a “demanding and somewhat unforgiving standard”.364 Any apparent inconsistency in the caselaw seems to me likely to be a function of the inevitability that meaning of words is contextual and the requirement that interpretations of statutes must be purposive, workable and coherent. As to the latter requirement, see Waltham Abbey.365 Issues of context and workability may be particularly influential on the interpretation of the concept of practicability – not least as it is applied to multifactorial evaluative judgments made in contexts requiring reconciliation of policies tending often in tension or even to pull in different directions.

171. Here the context in which the word “practicable” appears in one sense tends strongly towards the recognition of a “demanding and somewhat unforgiving” obligation of consistency with the Climate Acts and, inter alia, the CAPs. That context is the “the State’s recognition of the climate emergency as the supreme challenge of our time”. In that context, the view by Humphreys J that the obligation cannot be

362 See [2025] IESCDET 65. I have here amalgamated elements of the determination but I think the effect is faithful to its terms.

363 Mount Salus Residents v An Bord Pleanála, Minister for Housing, OPR & Smyth [2025] IEHC 14 248.

364 Gillen v Commissioner of An Garda Siochána [2012] IESC 3, [2012] 1 IR 574.

365 Waltham Abbey Residents Association & Pembroke Road Association v An Bord Pleanála and Derryroe [2022] IESC 30; [2022] 2 I.L.R.M. 417 §43; Also

SWI, IFI, Sweetman & Ors v ALAB et al [2024] IEHC 421 §1381, Shadowmill v ABP & Lilacstone [2023] IEHC 157, Cummins v An Coimisiún Pleanála [No.

2] [2025] IEHC 662.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

“watered down” to, or even close to, one of mere regard was correct and inevitable. The State’s argument for a “wide margin of appreciation” had to fail.

172. But as Mount Salus demonstrates, practicability is a complex concept and can allow a margin of appreciation to a decision-maker. In Mount Salus, I used the descriptors “appreciable” and “significant” to describe that margin. I would apply them here also, subject to the firm admonition, cited also in Mount Salus, that any such margin cannot operate as a “get-out-of-jail-free card” where compliance is not in fact impracticable. The State’s recognition of an “emergency” as “the supreme challenge of our time” can only imply that meeting that challenge is imperative. That being so, while I need not here decide the question, it may well prove over time, as caselaw develops in this area, that curial deference as to compliance with s.15, even on matters of evaluative judgment, will prove more or less anaemic and that this1 will be a field in which the trend away from the straitjacket of O’Keeffe irrationality, will acquire further momentum.

173. That said, it is to be remembered that s.15 applies not merely to the Commission but to all public bodies366 and prescribed bodies having a very wide array of functions and priorities, many with little to do with environmental or climate change concerns. Though s.15 clearly intends all of them to resolutely incorporate climate-change informed considerations in their decision-making and that such considerations should permeate virtually the entire public service, it is clearly unworkable in practice that, in every decisionmaking process, all other legitimate interests will be simply, mechanistically and even entirely, sacrificed to maximise response to climate change considerations. Indeed, were that the case, quantified climate goals would, logically, be beside the point. To so read Coolglass is to caricature the decision. Analogising the position in EIA – s.15 need not be construed and applied “in the most onerous manner possible” - Ó Gríanna #2.367

174. What matters, and what the courts will insist upon, is the substance of effective consistency with the materials listed in s.15. In that context it seems to me useful to consider section 4 of the 2015 Act, which prescribes adoption by the Government of climate action plans and a national long term climate action strategy. S.4(8) prescribes, in their adoption, regard to many factors. Some are not exclusively related to addressing climate change. For example: sustainable management of the public finances; promotion of sustainable development; so far as practicable, the need to maximise employment, the attractiveness of the State for investment and the long term competitiveness of the economy; the requirement for a just transition to a climate neutral economy which endeavours, in so far as is practicable, to maximise employment opportunities; the protection of public health; the special economic and social role of agriculture; and perhaps most notably given the wide scope and diversity of the issues it addresses, the National Planning Framework. I do not suggest that the NPF posits priorities at odds with climate change concerns but, for example, the reconciliation of those concerns with the National Strategic Objective, stated in the NPF, of “A Strong Economy, supported by Enterprise, Innovation and Skills” will obviously require flexibility not absolutism.

366 As defined by s.6 of the Freedom of Information Act 2014 – which is a very widely drawn definition.

367 Ó Gríanna v An Bord Pleanála (No. 2) [2017] IEHC 7. See also Kelly, Eoin v An Bord Pleanála [2019] IEHC 84 and Fitzpatrick v An Bord Pleanála [2017]

IEHC 585. SWI, IFI, Sweetman & Ors v ALAB et al [2024] IEHC 421.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

175. S.15 clearly requires that the response to Climate Change, with full conformity to its imperatives, must both suffuse national and public life and be reconciled with their other imperatives and legitimate interests. It is difficult to conceive of a more demanding, multifactorial, and complex endeavour - to which rigid, doctrinaire, tokenistic and simplistic solutions are likely to be inappropriate. The proper balance between the organs of Government – executive and planning decision-makers at national and local levels on the one hand and the courts on the other – between the courts’ supervision of compliance with the legal imperative and the executive’s executive and planning decision-makers legitimate decision-making powers - may prove to be hard-found and, if only as a next step, awaits the appeal in Coolglass. But as Humphreys J says, none of this reduces s.15 to imposing merely a “have regard to” obligation – if nothing more, the legislative history of its amendment rules out any such view.

176. In the present case we are concerned not with the grant or refusal of a renewable energy development, as was the case in Coolglass. Ultimately we are concerned with the difference posited by Mr Foran, in terms of effect on climate change or on the achievement of climate action goals, between, on the one hand, the provision which the Proposed Development undeniably makes for active travel and public transport and, on the other hand, the provision for active travel and public transport which Mr Foran says, in his inadmissible opinion, is both better and practicable. Even keeping the drop-in-the-ocean fallacy in mind, it may be only slightly too glib to observe that what is at issue here is the difference of effect on climate change considerations, between, on the one hand, a two-way cycle path on one side of each of Gort na Bro Road and the Link Road and, on the other hand, one-way cycle paths on each side of each of Gort na Bro Road and the Link Road. Even Mr Foran does not suggest, much less adduce admissible evidence, that any such difference of effect will be discernible. Even taking a slightly wider view, the same conclusion flows from the Commission’s submission that one cannot lose sight of the fact that what was before the Commission was an LRD – not some form of wider public transport proposal.

177. In one sense, Mr Foran’s argument could be seen as asserting that, where s.28 Guidelines address issues bearing on climate change, s.15 of the Climate Act implicitly transmutes the obligation of regard laid down by s.28 to one of compliance. However, that would be an extremely far-reaching, and to me surprising,

conclusion and I am not prepared to so decide absent detailed argument, which did not occur. Nor do I think it necessary to decide that issue on the facts of this case.

178. While I do respect Mr Foran’s genuine concerns, and mean no disrespect to his case, I cannot help observing that I do not think that the dilemmas raised by Coolglass are acutely raised in a dispute about whether the cycle lanes on the on Gort na Bro Road and the Link Road should be bidirectional on one side of the road or unidirectional on each side of the road. Whatever the breadth of, and however narrow, the margin of appreciation afforded the Commission by s.15, it seems to me that such a dispute falls well within it. I hasten to express my appreciation that Mr Foran’s practical concerns as to climate change issues are somewhat wider than simply the directionality of the cycle lanes – but I think that concern is emblematic of his wider concerns and the wider view does not alter my conclusion. It seems to me clear that as to the difference between what Mr Foran says should have been provided and what the Proposed Development

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

actually does provide, we are clearly in the territory, identified by Humphreys J, of “no discernible impact one way or the other on climate goals” such that, in the view of Humphreys J as to compliance with s.15, the Commission “is quite free to continue business as usual”. In other words and in my view, even taking Coolglass at its height and Mr Foran’s allegations at their height, the assertion of breach of s.15 fails.

179. In any event, Mr Foran simply hasn’t provided admissible evidence to support his assertion of breach of s.15 or that his prescription for active travel and public transport in the area is both better and practicable or that any effect on climate change or the attainment of climate change goals will be discernible. In short, and on the evidence before me, including that of Mr Gorman, I must conclude,

• First, that Mr Foran’s case amounts in reality to a disguised disagreement with the merits of the Impugned Decision. In essence he disagrees, with the merits of the inspector’s conclusions that

“…The proposed development includes for the upgrade and provision of additional cycling and pedestrian infrastructure and bicycle parking facilities. The improved pedestrian and cycling infrastructure will provide alternative modes of transport for those living and working locally, which will reduce the dependency on vehicular transport and associated greenhouse gas emissions”.368 the “layout and design of the scheme demonstrates significant consideration to its context and receiving environment. The pedestrian and cycle routes and public transport stops enable local journeys to be carried out via sustainable travel modes”.369

• Second, that his evidence is inadmissible on whether the practicability standard set by s.15 has been breached.

• Third, that the Proposed Development falls into the category, identified by Humphreys J in Coolglass, of “developments that have no discernible impact one way or the other on climate goals – the board is quite free to continue business as usual in those areas”.

• Fourth, and accordingly, that the Commission is not in breach of s.15.

180. I therefore reject Ground 2.

CONCLUSION

181. As I have rejected both the live grounds on which judicial review was sought, I dismiss the proceedings. While I respectfully caution that the reader should consider the entire of the reasoning set out above, perhaps the salient features of Mr Foran’s failure are that his challenge is merits-based, he has not

368 §18.7.

§7.4.5.

Foran v An Coimisiún Pleanála & Glenveagh [2026] IEHC 23

pleaded irrationality though he complained of it in argument and, not being himself qualified to give expert evidence (as he is the Applicant), he has failed to adduce admissible evidence of either a flaw in the Impugned Decision or, even assuming such a flaw, that there is any reason to consider that such flaw – primarily, less than optimal cycle lanes over something less than 300m - might matter in substance such that discretionary relief might issue. Also, Mr Gorman’s expert evidence stands uncontradicted by admissible evidence and I accept it. And Mr Foran should have made, but failed to make, much of his present complaints to the Commission.

182. I provisionally consider that there should be no order as to costs. I will list the case on 9 February 2026 for final orders.

23/1/26