High Court quashes Planning Commission refusal for lack of reasons regarding inspector's report.

[2026] IEHC 86

THE HIGH COURT

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT

[H.JR.2025.0000185]

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 50, 50A AND 50B OF THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

ACT 2000

BETWEEN

PAROSI DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

APPLICANT

AND

AN COIMISIÚN PLEANÁLA

RESPONDENT

AND

GALWAY CITY COUNCIL, NIGHTGUARD LIMITED AND HELEN DUFFY-FAHY

NOTICE PARTIES

Date of impugned decision: 12 December 2024

Date proceedings commenced: 11 February 2025

Date of main hearing: 14 January 2026

Date draft judgment circulated: 22 January 2026

JUDGMENT of Humphreys J. delivered on Monday the 16th day of February 2026

1. The project here as consented by Galway City Council (the council) is a seven-storey hotel

development adjacent to the N6 on the approach to Galway city. There is a five-storey hotel across

the road and a seven-storey permitted but unbuilt development in the vicinity. The inspector found

there to be a regular bus service in this area every 10-20 minutes, and nobody has shown that to

be incorrect as a matter of fact. The receiving environment is not a sensitive location and the

development site is effectively a vacant site in an industrial estate area and one of the only

development opportunities in this particular locality, all as found by the inspector – again there is

no contradiction of this. City policy supports development along transport corridors and, while

supporting maintenance of prevailing heights and setting out car parking standards, allows

departures on a case-by-case basis and on demonstration of alternative transport options

respectively. National policy also supports departure from such standards in appropriate cases. The

council (subject to conditions) and the inspector (on multiple occasions) found this development to

be an acceptable proposal. The commission by contrast refused permission. It is settled law that

there is a need for reasons for administrative decisions, and that this is particularly so where a

planning decision-taker disagrees with a reasoned decision or proposed decision made earlier in the

process by an institutional actor such as a planning authority or inspector. This case concerns the

fact-specific application of these established legal principles.

Judgment history

2. Earlier proceedings entitled Parosi Developments Limited v. An Bord Pleanála [2024 No. 288

JR] challenged an earlier decision of An Coimisiún Pleanála refusing permission. The proceedings

were resolved by way of a consent order of the High Court on 21 June 2024 and the matter remitted.

Geographical context

3. The proposed development (https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/320582) is an eight-storey

over basement, 186-bedroom hotel with below ground pool plant equipment, tank room, standby

generator and pumping station (gross floor area c. 12,478 m²). The development includes a

reception area, lounge area, a restaurant, a bar, a lobby, toilet facilities, and back-of-house rooms

on the ground floor. The ground floor also includes an LV switchroom, an MV switchroom, an ESB

substation, a transformer/LV switchroom, a public entrance to the spa and spa facilities including a

swimming pool, a whirlpool, a sauna/steam room, male and female changing rooms, and storage

rooms. The first floor incorporates spa facilities including a treatment room, a studio, a gym, a lobby

area, a storage area, eight meeting rooms with associated reception area, an office, toilet facilities

and a pantry. The upper floors incorporate 186 hotel bedrooms. The development also includes for

a green roof, emergency fire escapes, an upgrade to the existing entrance/exit from the Business

Park Campus, new guest vehicle entrance from the Business Park Campus to the north of the site,

two new vehicle entrances from the west of the site, 153 car parking spaces, three set-down spaces

at the main entrance, service entrance layby to the west of the site, 28 cycle spaces, electrical

vehicle charging spaces, pumping station kiosk, signage, associated landscaping and boundary

treatments, and all other site development works and services ancillary to the proposed

development, all on Site 4, Briarhill Business Park, Bóthar na dTreabh, the townlands of Ballybrit

and Doughiska, Galway. The site is approximately at:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/mShvrdu5yTwE53ms6.

Facts

4. On 20 August 2020, an application for planning permission was submitted on behalf of Parosi

Developments Limited to the council for planning permission for the construction of a development

consisting of an eight-storey over basement, 186-bedroom hotel and associated hotel elements on

a site at Briarhill Business Park, Bóthar na dTreabh in the townlands of Ballybrit and Doughiska,

Galway (planning permission reg. ref. 20/218).

5. On 13 October 2020, the council sought further information from the applicant with respect

to the proposed development. The applicant responded to the request on 21 July 2021.

6. On 26 August 2021 and on 1 September 2021, the council sought further clarifications in

relation to the applicant’s response to the request for further information. On 30 November 2021,

the applicant responded to these requests.

7. On 24 February 2022, the council decided to grant permission for the proposed development

subject to 22 conditions.

8. On 23 March 2022, the applicant, through its advisors MKO, submitted a first-party appeal

against the decision of the council to the commission (appeal ref. ABP-313102-22). The applicant’s

appeal concerned the imposition of condition 2 and condition 4 in the council’s decision to grant

permission. On the same day, third-party appeals were lodged by the notice parties. Both the first-

party and third-party appeals took issue with the council’s decision in the context of the Galway City

Development Plan 2017-2023.

9. On 25 April 2022, the applicant made a submission to the commission which addressed the

issues raised in the third-party appeal. On the same day, the council also made a submission to the

commission which addressed the inclusion of condition 2 and condition 4 in its decision to grant

permission. The council’s submission further addressed the points of appeal raised in the third-party

appeal, stating that each had been fully considered and dealt with by its planner in the

recommendation to grant permission, subject to conditions.

10. On 26 July 2022, the commission wrote to the council and advised that it had not been

possible to determine the appeal within the statutory time period, as provided by s. 126(2)(a) of the

Planning and Development Act 2000 (the 2000 Act), and that it proposed to determine the appeal

by 17 October 2022.

11. On 17 October 2022, the commission wrote to the council once again and indicated that it

would not be able to determine the appeal before the date previously advised, but that it hoped to

receive the inspector’s report and recommendation in the near future.

12. The Galway City Development Plan 2023-2029 was adopted on 24 November 2022, and

came into effect on 4 January 2023.

13. A senior planning inspector within the commission prepared a report, dated 25 November

2022. The commission directed that an addendum report be prepared, which was duly furnished on

5 December 2023.

14. As appears from the commission’s direction, dated 19 December 2023, the appeal was

considered at a meeting of the commission held on the same date. The commission’s direction

records that the commission considered the submissions on file and inspector’s report and decided

to refuse planning permission for the proposed development.

15. By way of order dated 3 January 2024, made in accordance with its direction, the commission

refused permission for the proposed development (https://www.pleanala.ie/en-ie/case/313102).

16. The applicant challenged the decision of the commission (ABP 313102-22) by way of judicial

review in proceedings entitled Parosi Developments Limited v. An Bord Pleanála

(H.JR.2024.0000288). By consent order dated 21 June 2024, the High Court granted certiorari of

the decision of the board and remitted the application for development back to the board for

reconsideration.

17. By way of letter dated 5 September 2024, the commission indicated that it was appropriate

in the interests of justice to request relevant parties to make any further general submissions, in

accordance with s. 131 of the 2000 Act. The applicant’s advisers, MKO, made submissions to the

commission, dated 2 October 2024. The second and third named notice parties also made

submissions, dated 18 September 2024.

18. For the purpose of the commission’s reconsideration of the matter on remittal, a further

inspector’s report was prepared, dated 5 November 2024.

19. This report notes that the prior reports were also taken into account (para. 1.4):

“This report considers the submissions made on foot of the request and the proposed

development in the context of the policy provisions of the GCDP and should be read in

conjunction with my original assessment contained within the Inspectors Report dated the

25th November 2022 and subsequent Addendum Report 5th December 2023 in respect of

ABP Ref: ABP-313102-22.”

20. As appears from the commission’s direction, signed on 11 December 2024, the application

was considered at a meeting of the commission held on 10 December 2024. The commission’s

direction records that the commission considered the submissions on file and the 2024 inspector’s

report, and decided to refuse planning permission for the proposed development. The commission’s

order was made on 12 December 2024, in which the commission refused permission for the proposed

development.

21. In these proceedings, the applicant seeks to impugn the commission’s decision of 12

December 2024.

Procedural history

22. The proceedings were issued on 11 February 2025.

23. On 20 February 2025, I granted the applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

24. On 7 March 2025, the respondent confirmed s. 50B of the 2000 Act applied and that they

had no objection to default directions.

25. On 10 March 2025, the proceedings were returnable to this List.

26. On 19 March 2025, the notice parties indicated that they did not intend to participate in the

proceedings.

27. On 20 June 2025, the respondent delivered its statement of opposition and affidavit.

28. On 30 June 2025, the proceedings were listed in the List to Fix Dates but were not allocated

a date.

29. On 15 September 2025, the proceedings were listed in the List to Fix Dates and were

allocated a date for hearing of 14 January 2026.

30. On 5 December 2025, the applicant delivered its written submissions.

31. On 22 December 2025, the respondent delivered its written submissions.

32. The matter was listed for callover on 12 January 2026, and papers were in order on that

date.

33. The matter was heard on 14 January 2026. Judgment was reserved at the end of that

hearing. I would like to record my thanks to all of the lawyers involved for their unfailingly courteous,

professional and helpful assistance. As I have previously sought to make clear, insofar as any points

advanced are not being accepted in this or any other given judgment, that is solely to do with the

inherent merits of such points and is no reflection on those instructed to convey such points, a

distinction that most certainly should be, and I believe generally is in fact, self-evident to all

concerned.

34. On 22 January 2026, a draft of the present judgment was sent to the parties to give an

opportunity to identify any errors. The rules of engagement in such a situation are that the draft is

without prejudice to the right of the court ultimately to issue a judgment in whatever form or with

whatever content it considers appropriate.

35. Any comments must be emailed to the relevant judicial assistant and uploaded to ShareFile

in writing within 7 days or by the next mention date whichever is sooner, and should not be to

reargue the substance (submissions to that effect will be disregarded) but are confined to matters

such as:

(a) informing the court as to whether a formal judgment is required, and if so on what

issues;

(b) informing the court as to whether a judgment might be oral or written or partly in

both modes;

(c) any typographical, factual or legal errors in the decision;

(d) any redaction of personal information that the party wishes to request;

(e) in the event that the court proposes to place pivotal reliance on any authority or

material not previously adverted to, as opposed to where such material merely

reinforces a point that the court was making in any event, any comment as to why

such material should not lead to the proposed conclusion; identifying points that the

court proposes to address but that the parties consider it unnecessary to address;

(f) requesting the court to decide a point that, while unnecessary to decide, is one the

party considers could beneficially be decided;

(g) identifying significant procedural, factual or legal points that the party considers that

the court was required to address but has not addressed or not provided reasons

for; and

(h) any other suggestions as to the wording (as opposed to substance) of the decision

if the proposed wording causes any significant issue for a party for any identified

reason.

36. It is then entirely a matter for the court as to whether to list the matter for mention, or

whether to simply give judgment with or without amendment to respond to any such comments or

for any other reason that appears appropriate to the court. Any judgment may be given without

further notice following the expiry of the specified period, whether comments are made or not. That

period will not be extended save in exceptional circumstances. All parties involved are requested to

positively confirm to the court the position including if they have no observations on the draft

legitimately falling within the foregoing parameters. Overall the draft judgment procedure is a

concession which parties can engage with but must do so with immediate dispatch, discipline and

focus – it is not the opening of a new phase of the litigation that gives rise to “an entitlement to

elaborate procedures at every point” (to use a phrase of O’Donnell C.J. (Dunne, Charleton and Baker

JJ. concurring) in O’Sullivan v. Health Service Executive [2023] IESC 11 (Unreported, Supreme

Court, 10 May 2023) at para. 39); and still less should the procedure invite the perhaps “serious

error, to which lawyers are prone, to approach any such case on the tacit assumption that only

procedures which approximate to a criminal trial are fair, and anything which departs from that is

somehow dubious” (O’Donnell J. in O'Sullivan v. Sea Fisheries Protection Authority [2017] IESC 75,

[2017] 3 I.R. 751, [2018] 1 I.L.R.M. 245, 780).

37. For the avoidance of doubt, draft judgments are not public domain materials and, while they

can be shared between the lawyers concerned and their clients, they are not intended for publication

(indeed given their lack of status it is impracticable to refer to them, even in the context of

considering such drafts in other litigation, until the judgment is formally issued) or for any other

transmission save for the legitimate purposes of the litigation. Therefore anyone with information

as to the text, content or proposed outcome of any draft is required not to transmit such information

to others save solely by way of private transmission for the legitimate purposes of the litigation and

subject to a similar restriction on any recipient (see Attorney General v. Crosland (No. 2) [2021]

UKSC 58, [2022] 1 W.L.R. 367, [24/01/2022] T.L.R. 1 which discusses why restriction on publication

of draft judgments is in the interests of the administration of justice). The contents of this paragraph

constitute an immediately effective direction of the court to the parties and anyone having notice of

the draft judgment with effect from the date of circulation of the draft.

38. The mention date to review matters following the foregoing was to be 9 February 2026. The

applicant made some drafting suggestions. The commission requested further time and delivered a

response on 13 February 2026. The matter was mentioned on that date and it was indicated that

judgment would be delivered shortly thereafter.

Relief sought

39. The reliefs sought are as follows:

“1. An Order of Certiorari by way of application for judicial review quashing the Order

of the Respondent, An Bord Pleanála (the ‘Board’), made on 12 December 2024, to refuse

permission for the construction of, inter alia, an eight [storey] over basement, 186 number

bedroom hotel with below ground pool plant equipment, tank room, standby generator and

pumping station (gross floor area: circa 12,478 square metres) and associated works on

Site 4, Briarhill Business Park, Bóthar na dTreabh, the townlands of Ballybrit and Doughiska,

Galway (ABP-320582-24) (the ‘Decision’).

2. An Order remitting the matter back to the Respondent to be considered and

determined in accordance with law and in accordance with such directions as this Honourable

Court may deem fit.

3. Such declarations of the legal rights and/or legal position of the Applicant and/or

persons similarly situated and/or of the legal duties of Respondent as the Court considers

appropriate.

4. A declaration that s.50B of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended,

(the ‘2000 Act’) and/or that s.3, s.4, and s.7 of the Environmental (Miscellaneous Provisions)

Act 2011 and/or Order 99 of the Rules of the Superior Courts applies in respect of the costs

of this application.

5. Such further or other order as this Honourable Court may deem fit.

6. The Costs of the within proceedings.”

Grounds of challenge

40. The core grounds of challenge are as follows:

“(1) Domestic Law Grounds

1. The Board’s Decision is invalid because the Board failed to indicate the main reasons

for not accepting the Board’s Inspector’s recommendation to grant permission contrary to

section 34(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and/or failed to provide any,

or any adequate reasons for the Decision contrary to the general administrative duty to give

reasons.

2. The Board’s Decision is invalid because the Board unlawfully failed to engage with

and/or take into account relevant considerations, namely, the submissions made to the

Board on behalf of the Applicant on 2 October 2024. In so doing, the Board acted contrary

to its duties and obligations and in breach of the rights of the Applicant to fair procedures

and natural and/or constitutional justice.

3. The Board’s decision is invalid as it failed to take relevant considerations into account

in its considerations relating to 8.7(8) of the Galway City Development Plan 2023-2029 and

the Galway City Urban Density & Building Heights Study 2021.

4. The Board’s Decision is invalid because it misconstrued the requirements of the

Galway City Development Plan 2023-2029 in relation to the issue of car parking

requirements, failed to take relevant considerations into account and acted irrationally.

5. The Board’s Decision is invalid because it took irrelevant considerations into account

and acted irrationally in relation to the issues of viability and material alteration of the

proposed development.”

National policy context

41. The National Planning Framework 2018 (in force at the relevant time) (https://www.npf.ie/)

includes the following objective NPO 11:

“National Policy Objective 11

In meeting urban development requirements, there will be a presumption in favour of

development that can encourage more people and generate more jobs and activity within

existing cities, towns and villages, subject to development meeting appropriate planning

standards and achieving targeted growth.”

42. NPO 13 is also relevant:

“National Policy Objective 13

In urban areas, planning and related standards, including in particular building height and

car parking will be based on performance criteria that seek to achieve well-designed high

quality outcomes in order to achieve targeted growth. These standards will be subject to a

range of tolerance that enables alternative solutions to be proposed to achieve stated

outcomes, provided public safety is not compromised and the environment is suitably

protected.”

43. Paragraph 1.10 of the Urban Development and Building Height Guidelines for Planning

Authorities 2018 (https://www.gov.ie/en/department-of-housing-local-government-and-

heritage/publications/urban-development-and-building-height-guidelines-for-planning-authorities/)

is focused on accommodation but nonetheless may be of some relevance. It provides:

“The rationale above for consolidation and densification in meeting our accommodation

needs into the future must also be applied in relation to locations that development plans

and local area plans would regard as city and town centre areas; for example, within the

canal ring in Dublin and analogous areas in Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford and other

major towns as identified and promoted for strategic development in the National Planning

Framework and Regional Spatial and Economic Strategies. In such areas, it would be

appropriate to support the consideration of building heights of at least 6 storeys at street

level as the default objective, subject to keeping open the scope to consider even greater

building heights by the application of the objectives and criteria laid out in Sections 2 and 3

of these guidelines, for example on suitably configured sites, where there are particular

concentrations of enabling infrastructure to cater for such development, e.g. very significant

public transport capacity and connectivity, and the architectural, urban design and public

realm outcomes would be of very high quality.”

44. Section 3.1 of the guidelines provides (emphasis added):

“Development Management Principles

3.1 In relation to the assessment of individual planning applications and appeals, it is

Government policy that building heights must be generally increased in appropriate urban

locations. There is therefore a presumption in favour of buildings of increased height in our

town/city cores and in other urban locations with good public transport accessibility.

Planning authorities must apply the following broad principles in considering development

proposals for buildings taller than prevailing building heights in urban areas in pursuit of

these guidelines:

• Does the proposal positively assist in securing National Planning Framework objectives of

focusing development in key urban centres and in particular, fulfilling targets related to

brownfield, infill development and in particular, effectively supporting the National Strategic

Objective to deliver compact growth in our urban centres?

• Is the proposal in line with the requirements of the development plan in force and

which plan has taken clear account of the requirements set out in Chapter 2 of these

guidelines?

• Where the relevant development plan or local area plan pre-dates these guidelines, can it

be demonstrated that implementation of the pre-existing policies and objectives of the

relevant plan or planning scheme does not align with and support the objectives and policies

of the National Planning Framework?”

City development plan

45. The core strategy statement of the development plan 2023 includes (emphasis added):

“1.5.3 Core Strategy Statement

The Core Strategy has been developed in line with the vision for Galway City as identified in

the Strategic Goals. This focus envisions the city to sustainably develop, strengthen and

nurture success, become a city of scale and continue to be driver of regional growth.

This vision includes for a settlement strategy that supports the city to transition to a low

carbon, climate resilient city. This can be achieved by implementation of a compact growth

approach, increased integration between land use and transportation, increased sustainable

mobility and sustainable use and management of environmental resources.

There is a focus in the strategy to facilitate development within the strategic

framework of the Galway Transport Strategy and to align employment and housing

growth along existing and planned transport corridors. This will increase active travel,

that is walking and cycling and usage of public transport.

To deliver on the compact growth approach, the strategy seeks to concentrate a significant

amount of development that is, more than half of all new homes within the built footprint of

the city and thereby accord with sustainable principles and the NPF/RSES objectives. This

will allow for efficient use of existing services, public transport and facilities and in some

areas can lead to transformational change bringing additional footfall, new life and facilitate

shorter, more sustainable journeys to employment, and recreation opportunities. Policy

guidance included in the plan on housing densities and mix, building height, design and

layout all contribute to achieving economic use of land and delivery of compact growth.

These policies have evolved in conjunction with the outcomes of the Building Height and

Density Study prepared as a supporting document for the plan and in line with Section 28

Ministerial Guidelines.

The approach to compact growth is further supported by an increasing focus on place

making, public realm measures and enhancement of amenity and recreational opportunities.

The delivery of these qualitative measures will be guided by the Galway City Public Realm

Strategy and the Recreational Needs Study and its successor and General Urban Design

Standards. It is a given that compact growth of itself will not deliver sustainable

neighborhoods [sic] and the vision for the city is that the delivery of housing is balanced

with the provision of community infrastructure which includes a range of critical facilities

including good open space, recreation facilities, good transport options and appropriate

social and community infrastructure.

In the interests of delivering compact growth the zoning of additional lands for residential

use has been constrained, existing residential areas of the city will grow but through

consolidation and modest densification. These areas predominantly include the suburbs of

Knocknacarra (Outer Suburbs West), Castlegar and Doughiska (Outer Suburbs East), where

there are existing opportunities for additional local employment growth. Plans for additional

investment in amenity, services and facilitates and planned investment in improved public

transport and active mode measures. In general these residential areas are considered

serviced. In infrastructural terms specific sites may require short extensions to services that

are normally a consideration during the development management process. There are

deficits of services for some community needs not necessarily those provided by the local

authority but sufficient land use zonings to generally accommodate these are included for

and identifying the deficit will be captured in the commitment in the plan to carry out

community services audits.

The Core Strategy also recognises, in line with the NPF and RSES/MASP direction, the

significant potential for a number of brownfield sites in the city to contribute to the delivery

of housing. Major potential exists in particular on the priority regeneration sites at Ceannt

Quarter, the Inner Harbour, Headford Road, Sandy Road and Crown Quarter. The

development of housing at these locations in conjunction with other mix of uses can improve

the general environment and revitalise and transform these to vibrant, living locations. The

location of the priority sites in the neighborhoods [sic] of the City Centre and Inner and

Established suburbs will contribute significantly to achieving the national and regional

planning strategy particularly that as guided by NPO 3 (b), NPO 6 and RPO 3.6.2 and 3.6.4.

Chapter 10 identifies these sites as Regeneration and Opportunity Sites and elaborates on

the objectives for these sites that guides how they can contribute to the growth of the city

as a regional economic driver while also complementing the character, sensitive

environment, cultural legacy and built form of the city. This accords with many national and

regional objectives including NPO 4 and NPO 5 and with the ambitions of the MASP.

The main urban extension of the city at Ardaun, which is a main focus of the settlement

strategy is identified as a key enabler under the NPF strategic growth area in the MASP

demanded detailed spatial guidance in the form of a Local Area Plan which was adopted in

2018. This area has potential to be a major new residential and employment settlement in

the city. It provides a continuous link out from the city and is integrated with the transport

strategy and capable of benefiting from planned investment in bus connects, active mode

networks and commuter rail investment at Garraun. It will provide opportunities for high

density residential development structured and co-ordinated with other essential community

services. It is well placed to develop good employment opportunities having close physical

links with the existing technology parks at Mervue, Ballybrit / Parkmore and strategic IDA

sites at Oranmore and Athenry. It is also well placed to link in with and take advantage of

the proximity of the higher level institution at ATU and the significant health institutions at

Merlin Park Hospital and the Galway Clinic.

Reflecting the recent years of low housing construction and a deficit of investment in

infrastructure no housing has been constructed in Ardaun to date. Future delivery will be

strongly linked to the stimulus needed from imminent additional infrastructural investment.

Notwithstanding this, an implementation strategy to address these constraints is

progressing. This included the preparation of an Area Based Transport Assessment (ABTA)

for the LAP lands which supported applications for successful allocations under both rounds

of Urban Regeneration Development Funding (URDF). This funding includes for the upgrade

to the primary access to the southern section under construction which will provide bus

priority, upgrades pedestrian and cyclist facilities and for the assessment of the location and

design of an additional access route into the LAP lands. Design work by Irish Water has also

been carried out under the Irish Water Network Extensions which will deliver capacity for a

proportion of the overall development during the currency of the plan period by facilitating

the Ardaun Wastewater Network Extension. Additional investment in a range of other

infrastructure will be required also to enable full development of these lands in time and this

will be sequenced with the longer term strategic settlement strategy focus of the MASP and

NDP.

Lands at Murrough, although primarily designated for recreation and amenity purposes, will

also sustain mixed uses including an element of housing and a significant delivery of

amenity. This in time will service both the adjacent third level institute at ATU and the

existing and planned population on the east of the city. It is anticipated that an LAP will be

brought forward during the currency of this plan and that recreational facilities and

infrastructure may be delivered but housing is not targeted in the period of this plan.

The Core Strategy has, as demonstrated in Table 1.9 ensured that sufficient lands are

available to meet the targeted growth and allow for a reasonable level of additional provision

and identify long term reserve lands. The lands available constitute a mix of consolidation

of existing residential lands which has capacity to deliver 4,560 homes.

Regeneration/opportunity sites are recognised as having significant potential to contribute

to sustainable compact growth, particularly those sites as prioritised in the MASP and Core

Strategy. These sites are targeted to deliver up to 1,590 housing units during the plan

period. Ardaun LAP area, as referenced, a strategic growth area is targeted to deliver 500

units during the currency of this plan. These targets have been aligned with the indicative

neighbourhood areas as identified in Figure 3.1, showing the proportionate split between

anticipated housing targets delivered from residential zoned lands and those identified as

regeneration /opportunity (infill sites). There is an excess of 1,917 targeted housing units

provided for over the quantum arrived at from the estimation of housing need demand

assessment (Table 1.4). This has been allowed for in the context of a need for ‘additional

provision’. It is being used to ensure that there is sufficient zoned lands to meet the

identified targeted housing needs and to allow for an element of choice and to recognize that

the time gap that exists between grants of permission and construction which can result in

delivery in subsequent plan periods.”

46. Policy 8.7 of the City Development Plan provides (emphasis added):

“Policy 8.7 Urban Design and Placemaking

1. Encourage high quality urban design in all developments.

2. Improve qualitative design standards through the application of design guidelines and

standards of the Development Plan, the Galway Public Realm Strategy (2019) and

accompanying design, activity and delivery manuals, Galway Shopfront and Signage Design

Guidelines (2012) and Design Guidelines Canopies (2011).

3. Ensure that development delivers high quality urban design, place making and public

realm that contributes to urban regeneration in the city and that is resilient to potential

impacts of climate change.

4. Encourage innovation in architecture and promote energy efficiency and green design.

5. Progress the implementation of the Ardaun Local Area Plan 2018-2024.

6. Prepare Local Area Plans, masterplans and spatial/design frameworks which provide an

urban design framework to contribute to the development of sustainable, vibrant working

and living environments.

7. Promote sustainable and inclusive urban design, urban form and architecture that

positively contributes to the city’s existing character and distinctiveness.

8. Adhere to the Galway City Urban Density and Building Height Study (2021) and

promote development which incorporates high quality sustainable and inclusive

urban design, urban form and architecture that positively contributes to the city’s

character, heritage and neighbourhood areas.

9. Proposals for buildings which are taller than the prevailing benchmark heights will only be

considered where they do not have an adverse impact on the context of historic buildings,

ACA’s, residential amenity or impinge upon strategic views, in accordance with the Urban

Density and Building Height Study for the city.

10. Promote the reuse and adaptation of derelict and vacant buildings.

11. Progress, by way of the Development Sites Register, the development of derelict sites

for housing and regeneration purposes through consultation with landowners and the

application the Derelict Sites Act 1990 (as amended) and other means available to Galway

City Council.”

47. However, section 8.8 of the CDP includes the following (emphasis added):

“Urban Density and Building Height

The Galway City Urban Density and Building Heights Study (2021) outlines a strategy to

help guide and influence urban density and building height of new development. It is

prepared in the context of a national policy agenda which revolves around nurturing a more

sustainable, compact form of development that can make a positive contribution to the

character of the city and create good quality mixed use communities. Notwithstanding the

pursuance of compact growth, Galway’s City Core is a historic environment with a sensitive

and distinct character. This setting is complemented by both the river and coastline context

which provides an impressive landscape and townscape features. As such, the impacts of

new development on the city’s character and setting will be a major consideration within the

visibility envelope of the historic core and natural environment context. The study following

analyses, includes for densities and building height ranges open for consideration as part of

the overall assessment of proposed developments.

These suggested ranges of scale and intensity are a guide and are not absolute measures to

be pursued or achieved and each site should be considered on its merits. Densities

and heights lower or higher than those outlined in the study may be appropriate

when assessed against other relevant policy and guidance. Large sites may support

opportunities for exceptional forms of development, this will be where their built form, their

social, economic and environmental impact can deliver excellence. Where sites of scale are

capable of generating their own character, in particular at the Ceannt Quarter, Inner Harbour

and Headford Road Regeneration Areas, scope for greater height is open for consideration

where this additionality can demonstrate justification which may be based on outstanding

architectural design and satisfy all other planning considerations. In general, the capacity

for height will be assessed in conjunction with the development guidance set out in the

Galway Urban Density and Building Height Study (2021) Section D Spatial strategy.”

48. Section 11 of the CDP includes:

“11.10 Urban Development and Building Height

With respect to building height, developments shall specifically have regard to the Galway

Urban Density and Building Height Study (2021) which sets out the framework for density

and building height in the city. Part D Spatial Strategy outlines the potential for appropriate

building densities and heights for new development in each geographic zone and sub zone

of the city.

11.11 Transportation

11.11.1 Parking Space Requirement

Car parking standards will be applied using performance-based criteria appropriate to

general location, in line with the National Planning Framework (NPF) requirements. These

standards will be subject to a range of tolerance that enables alternative solutions to be

proposed to achieve stated outcomes. The car parking standards adopt this approach and

are reflected in Table 11.6. This performance-based approach will enable the level of public

transport service to improve as more development occurs and vice-versa. There will be a

presumption against a car parking requirement for new development in the city centre unless

a justifiable case for minimum requirements is acceptable to the City Council. In this regard

maximum standards will apply in accordance with Table 11.6.

Notwithstanding the above, parking spaces for people with disabilities shall be provided in

accordance with Part M of the Building Regulations and best practice as promoted by the

National Disability Authority (www.nda.ie), and in particular their publication Building for

Everybody: A Universal Design Approach 2012.

In the case of any use not specified, the Council will determine the parking requirement,

having regard to the traffic levels likely to be generated as a result of the development. In

the case of developments with significant car trip generation potential, a Traffic and

Transport Assessment (TTA) shall be carried out in accordance with the Traffic and Transport

Assessment Guidelines (TII 2014). The requirements for a TTA should be ascertained at the

preplanning stage. TTA’s shall project forward 5 years and 15 years after the opening date

in accordance with TII Traffic and Transport Assessment Guidelines and the UK’s Institution

of Highways and Transportation Guidelines, and shall, in their analysis, consider all major

road and traffic schemes and existing and proposed developments in an area.

Consideration will also be given to grouped and dual use parking provision where peak

demands do not coincide and cognisance will be given to the potential for multi-purpose

trips, subject to assessment.

A reduction in car-parking requirements may be acceptable when an application for

development includes a Travel Plan, details on options for sustainable modes and/or

demonstrates options for alternative methods of dealing with traffic generation associated

with the proposed development.

In the Inner Residential Area and Salthill Area, where parking is not being provided for in a

development, it shall be demonstrated that alternative provisions are sufficient to ensure no

adverse traffic impact of the development. This may include, the provision of cycling

infrastructure, public transport access within a 10 or 15 minute walk from the development

or access to other active travel modes.

Table 11.6 Parking Space Requirement for Different Types of Development: Maximum

Standards”

49. There is then a table of standards which is quoted by the inspector:

Bars and Lounges (including Hotel Bars) 1 space per 8 m2 gross floor area

Function Rooms (including Hotel function 1 space per 10 m2

rooms)

Hotels (in addition to the above) 1 space per bedroom

City density and height study

50. The Galway City Urban Density and Building Height Study (2021)

(https://consult.galwaycity.ie/en/consultation/draft-galway-city-development-plan-2023-

2029/chapter/urban-density-and-building-heights-study) sets out criteria for building heights.

51. It states on pp. 13-14 (emphasis added):

“Building height In relation to building heights, the plan notes that the scale of development

in terms of height and massing can have a considerable impact on other buildings and spaces

as well as views and skylines. Additional building height over and above the prevailing

height can usefully mark points of major activity such as business districts, civic

functions and transport interchanges. They can also however, have a considerable impact

in the context of historic buildings, Architectural Conservation Areas, areas of natural

heritage importance and can detract from a city’s skyline and impinge upon strategic views.

In the context of the city which is predominantly low rise with its sensitive historic core and

unique natural amenity setting, there is little capacity for dramatic increases in height.

However, it is recognised that modest increases at appropriate locations, can help use land

efficiently and provide for sustainable high densities.

In the assessment of development proposals, the following principles will be considered

when assessing capacity for height:

• Protection of existing built and natural heritage and residential amenity.

• Creation of landmarks that enhance the city’s legibility without eroding its innate character

• Retention of existing benchmark heights so as to retain strategic views and to protect and

enhance the general character of sensitive locations.

• Promotion of higher density at centres/nodes of activity, on large scale infill sites and along

public transport corridors.

Areas where major change is anticipated to occur such as at Ardaun, Murrough, Ceannt

Station and the Inner Harbour may present opportunities for increased heights. As these

are major development areas, there is potential for these areas to establish their own

distinctive character. Such height increase will only be considered in the context of an LAP

in the case of Ardaun and Murrough and in a masterplan in the context of Ceannt Station

and the Inner Harbour. It notes that any development proposals for buildings above the

prevailing benchmark height will be required to be accompanied by a design statement

outlining the rationale for the proposal and an assessment of its impact on the immediate

and surrounding environment including buildings, open space, public realm and any views.”

52. Section 8 of the study identifies existing heights:

“8.5 Building heights

Combined use of DTM and DSM data enables us to present a picture of existing building

heights across the whole of the city area. As one would expect, this plan reveals the

buildings generally rise in height towards the core city centre.”

53. The development site is colour coded at a fairly low level of existing height and buildings in

that area appear to be four storeys or under.

54. Chapter 14 opens as follows:

“It is helpful to think about character at different scales. Part B provides an overview of

some of the characteristics which help to determine the character of Galway when considered

at a district-wide scale. Combining this with reflections on the suitability and sensitivity

analysis will help us explore character at a scale best understood by local people - at the

neighbourhood and area level.

The ‘neighbourhood concept’

Galway comprises of a series of places and neighbourhoods, each having their own distinct

character. The Development Plan introduces the ‘neighbourhood concept’ in Section 2.4,

supported by standards and guidance outlined in Section 11.3. Whilst this concept relates

to residential areas only, it provides a useful district-wide four tier categorisation of places,

each with a series of distinct neighbourhood places as follows:

1. City centre:

• Woodquay, Long Walk, Henry Street Area, and the City Core

2. Inner residential areas:

• East - Bohermore, College Road, Lough Atalia

• West - Claddagh, Shantalla, Newcastle, Fr. Griffin Road

3. Established suburbs:

• East - Renmore, Mervue, Ballybaan

• West - Dangan, Salthill, Taylor’s Hill, Westside

• North - Tirellan, Ballinfoile

4. Outer suburbs:

• East - Ardaun, Doughiska, Roscam

• West - Knocknacarra, Ballyburke, Ballymoneen

• North - Castlegar, Tuam Road

The places and neighbourhoods identified in the ‘neighbourhood concept’ are not defined –

views on where any one place starts or ends will vary. The purpose of dividing Galway into

these places and neighbourhoods is to help ensure that growth and development is tailored

in a way that responds positively to the special qualities and specific issues / challenges of

different locations and contexts.

Whilst not a characterisation study in itself and acknowledging that much further work could

be done in terms of understanding Galway’s varied character, the ‘neighbourhood concept’

forms the basis of a useful framework around which this density and heights study can be

structured.

Set in the context of this neighbourhood concept, two Development Plan policy frameworks

are considered particularly relevant to the density and building height strategy. Firstly, the

network of retail centres distributed across Galway City’s administrative area, and, secondly,

the known land use zones and lands earmarked for new residential and mixed use

development. These include the key identified regeneration lands at Ceannt Station, Inner

Harbour, the Headford Road and Ardaun LAP lands.

Retail hierarchy

The retail hierarchy for Galway is set out under Section 6.3 of the current Development Plan.

Proximity of retail centres and clusters of retail and community services form an important

part of the suitability analysis outlined in Part C of this document. Good levels of

accessibility, either via means of active travel or public transport, to retail and other centres

is a key component for the establishment of sustainable patterns of life. The services these

locations provide reduce the need to travel, particularly by car. Table 6.2 of the current plan

provides a summary of how the retail centres across the city of Galway sit within the County-

wide hierarchy of retail centres.”

55. But the fluidity of defining a neighbourhood in cultural terms doesn’t detract from the fact

that the study is a legal document with status under the CDP and thus that its terms and scope have

a defined meaning. The maps are consistent, as you would expect, in defining the boundaries of

the neighbourhoods and specifically in putting the development site outside such boundary.

56. Section 19 of the study opens as follows (emphasis added):

“19.1 Overview

This is a large area and it is hard to characterise given the diverse range of environments.

The major approach routes into / out of the city are defining features. Generally larger

scale commercial / industrial / mixed use developments are focused along the

transport corridors which contrasts with the otherwise suburban scale found

across the area. Notable places towards the east include Merlin Park hospital and woods,

and Ballybrit Racecourse. The west largely comprises the Knocknacarra, Ballyburke and

Ballymoneen residential communities, with the district centre along the Western Distributor

Road. The east of the city is characterised by the residential communities of Doughiska and

Roscam, and by Parkmore, Doughiska and Briarhill commercial areas.”

57. Section 19.4 is headed “East - Doughiska, Roscam, Ardaun”. It states:

“What makes this place distinct? Located between the Merlin Park Hospital to the west and

the N67 road to the east, Doughiska is a modern housing neighbourhood with mixed housing

of semi-detached, short terraces and apartment blocks. There is a good mix of commercial

and community facilities with the Briarhill Shopping Centre to the north alongside the four

storey Clayton Hotel. There are also retail and community facilities at Doughiska including

a primary school. Roscam is a suburban area south of the Old Dublin Road and largely

contained by the railway line and the east-west axis of the N67. The neighbourhood has

grown around a small enclave of slightly older detached homes at Roscam. The

neighbourhood is well landscaped and housing is predominantly two storey semi-detached

housing with some denser forms including four storey apartment buildings on primary roads.

A local retail centre at the junction between the neighbourhood’s two main roads meets the

day-to-day retail needs of local people. South of the Old Dublin Road, is a more established

area of Roscam.

What are the opportunities for growth? The eastern neighbourhoods of Galway are a major

focus of housing growth. The Ardaun LAP proposes a large new residential community.

Ardaun will benefit from a new district centre in the form of an urban village centre at its

heart. Along with the existing retail and community facilities in Doughiska, the eastern

suburbs are well serviced by community infrastructure and services. Whilst significant

amounts of land are earmarked for low density housing development, in view of the range

of services in close proximity, the new community facilities that have been delivered and the

largely new-built character of the surrounding neighbourhoods, there may be opportunity to

increase density, subject to environmental considerations to help deliver a more sustainable

pattern of development.”

58. The area is defined by a map showing lands generally to the south of the N6. The

development site falls outside the area defined by the map.

59. The commission’s view was that the passing references to Briarhill (above the N6) puts the

site within the Doughiska area. That is erroneous. The map is definitional so any textual language

allegedly amending that would need to be clear. The text referring to Briarhill comes nowhere near

overriding the map and reads much more naturally as simply geographical description.

60. The development guidance for this area – which does not apply to the development site –

states:

“DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE

Prevailing densities: The recent housing developments of Doughiska and Roscam areas

generally achieve housing densities of between 30 and 40 dph.

Densities open for consideration: New development should reflect prevailing density in the

range of 30 - 40 dph. The Ardaun LAP gives guidance on the appropriate densities in the

LAP area.

Prevailing heights: Generally a housing pattern of 2 - 3 storey.

Heights open for consideration: This pattern is appropriate and should continue. Given the

largely new-build character of the area as a whole, there are few sensitivities in relation to

the scale of development and opportunities to push for marginally increased height where

appropriate to do so should be taken. The Ardaun LAP gives guidance on the appropriate

heights in the LAP area.”

61. Section 20.5 of the study states (emphasis added):

“20.5 Supporting the development management process

In addition to the general guidance set out in this study and specifically to support the

development management process, proposals for increased density and height will be

subject to specific contextual assessment and should clearly demonstrate:

1 Heritage assets and their setting

How the proposed development responds positively to the setting and significance of

relevant heritage assets, and the wider historic character of the area that contributes

positively to the city’s distinctiveness.

2 Design quality

How the proposal represents exceptional design quality in terms of urban grain and layout;

scale, height and massing; proportion and detailing; materials; and associated public realm.

Both the design quality of the building itself, and how that scheme positively contributes to

its relationship with the surrounding area, will be important considerations.

3 Townscape rationale

Where proposals involve taller buildings, they must be supported by a clear townscape

rationale. This would include an approach to how key locations are marked and how

proposals respond to and exploit good levels of public transport accessibility and supporting

services.

4 Tall building statement

Where a tall building, one that significantly exceeds the prevailing benchmark heights is

proposed, it shall be accompanied by a Tall Building Statement which gives justification for

an exception for such height and includes at a minimum the case for the proposal based on

location, design, context and assimilative capacity.

5 Impact assessment

An assessment of all visual and environmental impacts including microclimate, daylight and

sunlight, overlooking, overshadowing, impact on skyline and views, ecological assets and

green spaces and the provision of appropriate mitigation where required.

6 Sustainability and climate benefits

Significant sustainability and climate action benefits including in building design,

construction, operation and connections to the surrounding area.

7 Public realm

That appropriate public realm, amenity, landscaping, rest and play spaces are incorporated

to a high standard.”

62. While this doesn’t specify what “increased” means, in context it appears to mean increased

over the prevailing height in the area.

The impugned decision

63. Before coming to the inspector’s analysis it makes sense to start with the impugned decision,

which provides as follows (emphasis added):

“Decision

REFUSE permission for the above proposed development in accordance with the reasons and

considerations set out below.

Reasons and Considerations

The Board considered that the height, scale and mass of the proposed development to be

inappropriate for this outer suburban area and would be contrary to Policy 8.7(8) of the

City Development Plan which seeks to adhere to the Galway City Urban Density and Building

Height Study (2021). The Spatial Strategy for the outer suburbs set out in the Galway

City Urban Density and Building Height Study (2021) states that the prevailing two-three

storey building height pattern should continue and any opportunities to increase the

height of new buildings above the prevailing height in the area should be marginal. The

proposal at eight storeys in height is considerably in excess of the prevailing height in this

outer suburban area and therefore would be contrary to the Galway City Urban Density and

Building Height Study (2021), the Galway City Development Plan 2023 - 2029 and would be

contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.

In deciding not to accept the Inspector's recommendation to grant permission, the Board

considered the proposed development would be contrary to Policy 8.7(8) which

requires adherence to Galway City Urban Density and Building Height Study 2021 and did

not share the Inspector's view that exceptional design quality had been demonstrated due

to the mass, scale and form of the proposed development and its relationship with

the surrounding area. It is further noted that Section 3.1 of the Urban Development and

Building Height Guidelines for Planning Authorities seeks a presumption in favour of buildings

of increased height in our town/city cores and in other urban locations with good public

transport accessibility. Having regard to the sites [sic] location in an outer suburban

area on the periphery of the built-up area, the Board considered that the policies in the

National Planning Framework or the National and Western Regional Spatial and Economic

Strategy regarding the promotion of compact settlement growth did not justify such a

fundamental departure from the prevailing two-three storey character of the

surrounding area.

The Board also did not share the Inspector's view that the site was sufficiently well

serviced by public transport, in order to reduce any substantial reliance on the private

car, particularly in relation to providing access from the site to the and from Galway City

Centre. In this regard, it was considered that the applicant had not sufficiently

demonstrated or justified the reduction in car parking provision below the

standards required in the development plan.

The Board also had regard to the grounds of the first party appeal, and for the arguments

set out above, did not consider an eight-storey building to be appropriate on the subject

site. The Board also noted the arguments put forward by the appellant regarding the

reduction in the quantum of development by one storey would adversely affect the viability

of the proposed development, for this reason the Board considered that any further

reduction in the height and scale of the proposed development in order to allay its

concerns and provide a development of a more suitable scale in the context of the

surrounding area, would further reduce the viability of the proposal and would

result in a development which is materially different that that originally applied

for.”

64. Unfortunately, I must reject the interpretation offered by the commission that the decision

is referring to the reduction from eight to seven storeys conditioned by the council. The wording of

this is clearly referable to a “further” reduction which would “further reduce” viability – this can only

mean from seven to six or fewer storeys (emphasis added):

“The Board also had regard to the grounds of the first party appeal, and for the arguments

set out above, did not consider an eight-storey building to be appropriate on the subject

site. The Board also noted the arguments put forward by the appellant regarding the

reduction in the quantum of development by one storey would adversely affect the viability

of the proposed development, for this reason the Board considered that any further

reduction in the height and scale of the proposed development in order to allay its concerns

and provide a development of a more suitable scale in the context of the surrounding area,

would further reduce the viability of the proposal and would result in a development which

is materially different that that originally applied for.”

65. Citing Kennedy v. Law Society of Ireland (No. 3) [2001] IESC 35, [2002] 2 I.R. 458 (Murphy

J.) at pp. 486 to 489, Olakunori v. Minister for Justice and Equality [2016] IEHC 473 (Unreported,

High Court, 29 July 2016), para. 64 (xiii), Murtagh v. An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 345 (Unreported,

High Court, Owens J., 29 March 2023), Ironborn v. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council [2023]

IEHC 477 (Unreported, High Court, Mulcahy J., 31 July 2023) S.M. & M.T.A. v. Minister for Justice

[2024] IECA 145 (Unreported, Court of Appeal, Binchy J., 4 June 2024), B.D. v. International

Protection Appeals Tribunal [2025] IESC 38 (Unreported, Supreme Court, O’Malley J., 25 July 2025)

and AAI Baneshane Ltd v. An Coimisiún Pleanála [2025] IEHC 641 (Unreported, High Court, 21

November 2025), the commission argues that the reasons are severable:

“12. It is well-established that the Courts are required in judicial review to decline to

grant certiorari in circumstances where, even after a successful challenge to certain reasons

for a decision refusing the administrative relief sought, other reasons for the decision are

not impugned.”

66. I agree with that general proposition obviously, but it doesn’t apply here. If there are two

or more independent reasons, showing error in one or more of such reasons isn’t enough if there

remains an independent reason for the decision that is stand-alone and intact. Conversely, if reasons

are interrelated by a logical, factual or legal cross-over, such that they are not entirely independent,

then the decision is not sustainable if any leg of the stool is knocked – see DPP v. Hutchinson [1990]

2 A.C. 783, cited in Murtagh and Element Power Ireland Ltd v. An Bord Pleanála [2017] IEHC 550

(Unreported, High Court, Haughton J., 28 September 2017) cited in AAI Baneshane. The problem

for the commission is that there is a relationship between the different reasons: they are connected

by the overarching question of accessibility which affects both site location considerations and car

parking.

67. In written submissions, the commission makes the following unsustainable claim:

“10. In the Decision, the Commission decided to refuse permission for 5 reasons:

a. The Commission considered that the height, scale and mass of the proposed

development was inappropriate, and contrary to Policy 8.7(8) of the Development Plan and

contrary to proper planning. The Commission did not share the Inspector’s view that the

proposed development comprised exceptional design quality, instead considering that in

light of the mass, scale and form of the proposed development, seen in the context of the

surrounding area, that it could not be said to amount to exceptional design quality. (Reason

1).

b. The Commission considered that §3.1 of the UDBHS created a presumption in favour

of increased height in the urban core and areas with good public transport. However, the

proposed development was located in the outer suburbs, and the Commission considered

that the provisions of the National Planning Framework and/or the National & Western

Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy did not justify a departure from the prevailing

building heights of 2-3 storey developments in the surrounding area. (Reason 2)

c. The Commission disagreed with the Inspector’s consideration of the public transport

provision at the site of the proposed development. In this regard, the Inspector noted that

the Applicant had not justified the proposed reduction in car parking provision in the

proposed development below the standards in the Development Plan. (Reason 3).

d. The Commission, considering the submissions made by the Applicant concerning

viability, concluded that any further reduction of the height of the building below that

proposed by the Applicant would affect its commercial viability. (Reason 4).

e. Finally, the Commission considered that a reduction in the height of the proposed

development could result in the grant of permission for a materially different development

from that proposed. (Reason 5).”

68. This, first of all, inadvertently misquotes the decision – the commission did not say that “a

reduction” would result in a materially different permission – they referred to “a further reduction”.

As noted above that is a very different thing. That means six storeys or less – not the seven-storey

project as approved by the council.

69. Secondly, the commission’s alleged reasons 4 and 5 are not substantive reasons for refusing

permission at all. They are merely reasons for not further conditioning the project (as approved by

the council) so as to overcome the substantive reasons for refusing permission.

70. Finally, this way of presenting the matter more than smacks of post hoc legal reprogramming

of the decision and creates three reasons where the commission only had two. A good starting point

is normally the paragraphing structure of commission orders (put in place before there is any

question of legal challenge) which is normally a reliable guide to the number of reason they think

they had – sometimes (and here) that is more reliable than subsequent ingenuity. The first

paragraph relates to urban design policy in the outer suburban area. The second paragraph relates

to why the commission disagreed with the inspector in this regard. The third paragraph deals with

car parking. The first sentence of the final paragraph is repetitive of the first paragraph, and the

rest of it deals with viability which is not a substantive reason and which I have addressed above.

71. What runs through both strands of reasons (design/location and car parking) is the question

of accessibility of the site by public transport. The commission’s reasons are not independent or

standalone because the accessibility of the location is relevant throughout. So they are not properly

severable. In fact as we will see, the applicant succeeds in challenging both reasons, but even if

only one had fallen, the link between the two is such that the decision overall could not stand.

The inspector’s analysis

72. The inspector prepared three separate reports on this matter, two prior to remittal and one

subsequent, on:

(i) 25 November 2022;

(ii) 5 December 2023; and

(iii) 5 November 2024.

73. In the first report, the inspector included the following criteria-specific analysis of compliance

with national policy:

“7.4.8. The following is my assessment of the development, in the context of the Section

3.2 criteria.

At the scale of the relevant city/town

7.4.9. The first criterion relates to the availability of public transport with high capacity,

frequent service and good links to other modes of public transport.

7.4.10. The applicant submits that there are 6 bus-stops within 270m of the site and that

the site is served by 2 bus routes (Nos. 401 and 409) which provide city bus services every

10-20 minutes. The proximate bus stops are also served by regional bus services. The

applicant also states that Eyre Square is a 19-minute cycle from the site.

7.4.11. The second criteria relates to successful integration into and/or enhancement of the

character and public realm of the area, having regard to topography, cultural context, setting

of key landmarks and protection of key views.

7.4.12. By reference to the architectural Design Report submitted with the application, the

applicant submits that the development would greatly enhance the character of the area,

enabling a sense of place to be created, causing a noticeable improvement in the building

typology of the area and, more generally, having a beneficial impact.

7.4.13. The third criterion relates to proposed developments making a positive contribution

to place-making, using massing and height to achieve density and with variety in scale and

form to surrounding character and to create visual interest.

7.4.14. The applicant submits that the development makes a positive contribution to place-

making and that the layout optimises site characteristics and responds to its context,

providing two-bedroom wings that maximise views and access to natural light. Finishing

materials and treatments give the building its own identity.

7.4.15. The site is served by public transport and is in a part of Galway City that already

contains taller hotel buildings and which will continue to evolve as part of the metropolitan

area of Galway City. In accordance with advice provided by the Guidelines, it may therefore

be a suitable location to consider a taller building.

7.4.16. I noted on my visit to the site that there is a high degree of functional separation

between the site and the remaining area of Galway City, south of Bothar na dTreabh. There

is a pedestrian underpass that leads from the site to Monivea Road, under Bothar na

dTreabh, but in practice this provides very limited connectivity to the rest of the urban area

to the south. However, cognisance must be given to the fact that the proposal is a hotel

development and it does not give rise to the same requirement for high levels of connectivity

that, for example, a residential development would. I consider proximity to public transport

services is a more important factor to consider and I note the applicant’s submissions in this

regard.

7.4.17. Regarding the issue of connectivity, I would advise that Board that the delivery of

the N6 Galway City Ring Road (GCRR), which routes north of the site, is likely to have an

effect on traffic patterns in this area of the City and is likely to effect reconsideration of the

functional role of Bothar na dTreabh in the future. But there is no clear timeframe for its

delivery, so the current road layout and conditions on Bothar na dTreabh are likely to remain

for the foreseeable future.

7.4.18. Regarding integration into and enhancement of the public realm and contribution to

place-making, I note that the application includes a set of 9 No. CGIs and the applicant

acknowledges that the development will be prominent from the east, west and south, along

the R339 and Bothar na dTreabh. In justifying the development, the applicant states that

the subject site is one of the primary gateways into Galway City Centre and that it is one of

the last developable opportunities that can improve placemaking in the locality. In this

context, it is argued that the height step from adjacent buildings is appropriate.

7.4.19. It can be seen from these CGIs that the proposal is a dominant feature in views from

the east and west, along Bothar na dTreabh. As a taller building in an area of low-rise

development, I accept that the proposal will have a dominant effect in some views. But in

saying this, the site is not located within a sensitive or protected landscape or conservation

area and is proximate to other taller buildings. For example, the five storey Clayton Hotel

is on the opposite side of Bothar na dTreabh and there is approved development that includes

taller buildings of up to seven storeys to the south, adjacent to the junction of Bothar na

dTreabh and the Eastern Approach Dual Carriageway (Reg. Ref. 18/25 refers). This area of

the city, which is within its metropolitan area, is evolving and I consider the development

will integrate into and contribute to the evolving character of the area

At the scale of the district/neighbourhood/street

7.4.20. The criteria combine to state that proposals should respond to their overall context

and should positively contribute to the urban setting, should not be of a monolithic design,

should contribute to the mix of uses and building typologies in the area and should enhance

the urban design context and positively contribute to legibility improvements.

7.4.21. As I have stated previously, the applicant submits that the proposal strives to

introduce a higher quality of built form and that the proposal will result in an improvement

to the character of the area. The applicant references Section 1.10 of the Guidelines, which

states that city centres and analogous areas that are promoted for strategic development

should have a default objective to deliver building heights of at least six storeys at street

level.

7.4.22. The proposal represents the redevelopment of a vacant urban plot which currently

makes little or no contribution to the urban grain of the area. In this context, I consider the

redevelopment of the plot is to be welcomed.

7.4.23. I agree with the applicant, that the development will be prominent from the east,

west and south, along the R339 and Bothar na dTreabh. This is related to the low-rise

character of Briarhill Business Park and other development north of Bothar na dTreabh and

is, in my view, an inevitability of the development of a taller building on the site. But there

are other taller buildings in the area and it is my view that the site can accommodate a taller

building. As the applicant points out, Section 1.10 of the Building Heights Guidelines

promotes building heights of at least six storeys in locations such as this and the section

also states that taller building heights over and above this should be considered by

application of the criteria laid out in the Guidelines and where there is a particular

concentration of enabling infrastructure and the overall project outcome would be of very

high quality.

7.4.24. The building has a contemporary design and comprises of two effective wings, which

are separated by a break in the building that allows for natural light to each room. I am

satisfied that the proposed design is not monolithic in its design and its design incorporates

sufficient architectural and visual interest to make a positive contribution to the urban

neighbourhood and streetscape.

7.4.25. In respect of the proposed hotel use, I note the appellant’s concern that the

development may result in an overconcentration of hotel accommodation in the area. The

Clayton Hotel is opposite the site, on the south side of Bothar na dTreabh and there is an

approved 122-bed hotel adjacent to the junction of the Eastern Approach Dual Carriageway

and Bothar na dTreabh, approved under Reg. Ref. 18/25. Notwithstanding these concerns,

I consider the proposed development, which includes associated elements such as a gym

facility, restaurant and lounge/bar at ground floor levels, would contribute to the overall mix

of uses in the area.

At the scale of the site/building

7.4.26. The criteria together require that the form, massing and height of proposed

developments should be carefully modulated so as to maximise access to natural daylight,

ventilation and views and minimise overshadowing and loss of light, with reference to BRE

and BS guidance. Where compliance with all requirements is not achieved, this should be

identified and justified.

7.4.27. The application is not accompanied by a daylight and sunlight assessment.

Notwithstanding this, I have given consideration to the proposed internal layout.

7.4.28. As I have stated previously, the building comprises of two effective wings, which are

separated by a break in the building that allows for natural light to each bedroom. Bedrooms

are located between level 02-08 and it is from level 02 that the building splits into the

separate wings. The building layout is also staggered, with the west wing set slightly forward

of the east wing in order to allow for penetration of natural light to the inward facing

elevations. I am satisfied that the proposed layout ensures the majority of rooms are likely

to experience high levels of natural light. Some of the inward facing rooms may experience

overshadowing in mornings or evenings but I have not been able to quantify this. The Board

may therefore wish to clarify this.

7.4.29. The appellant, Helen Duffy Fahy, expresses concern that the development will

overlook and overshadow adjacent property and will negatively affect visual amenity.

7.4.30. I have previously commented on the visual impact of the development and

expressed the view that the site is capable of accommodating a taller building.

7.4.31. Regarding potential overlooking, in an urban location such as this I consider

redevelopment of the site will inevitably give rise to overlooking. Bedrooms within the hotel

will overlook to the east, west and north but adjacent premises at Briarhill Business Park are

all in commercial use and are not sensitive to overlooking. There are no sensitive properties

such as housing in the area that would be overlooked by the development.

7.4.32. Similarly, overshadowing of adjacent property is likely to arise, in view of the scale

of development and the juxtaposition of adjacent buildings. Shadow cast onto adjoining

land to the west is likely to be significant in the mornings, given the very close proximity of

the proposal to the shared boundary. However, this said, there are limited window openings

on the east elevation of the adjoining building and the external area is used for car parking.

The impact of overshadowing is therefore limited.

7.4.33. The proposal is set back from the east site boundary by in excess of 50m. The

development may overshadow the adjacent property in the evenings but I consider the

relationship of the development to this property would be acceptable, given the urban

context.

Conclusion

7.4.34. The subject site is located within the metropolitan area of Galway City and is in an

area served by public transport. In accordance with guidance contained within the Building

Heights Guidelines, I consider it is a suitable location for the provision of a taller building.

7.4.35. Section 1.10 of the Building Heights Guidelines promotes building heights of at least

six storeys in locations such as this, but it also states that taller building heights over and

above this recommended minimum should be considered by application of the criteria laid

out in the Guidelines. It is my view that the site context, in particular its proximity to other

taller buildings and the fact that it is served by regular public transport services, means

consideration can be given to a taller building such as that proposed. I am satisfied that the

proposed design is not monolithic in its design and its design incorporates sufficient

architectural and visual interest to make a positive contribution to the urban neighbourhood

and streetscape. In view of this, I conclude that the proposed building height is acceptable.”

74. As regards traffic and parking, he stated:

“Traffic, Access and Parking

7.6.1. The development includes access from within Briarhill Business Park. The main

access is to the north and it provides access to the hotel entrance area and main car park.

There is a secondary access to the west, which provides access to a smaller car park and a

further access to the south provides access to an additional small parking area. The

development includes 193 No. car parking spaces, together with bicycle parking spaces. A

Transportation Assessment Report and Preliminary Mobility Management Plan was submitted

with the application.

7.6.2. At the AI stage the applicant proposed the incorporation of a shuttle bus service,

which the AI submission document states would serve the City Centre and Parkmore area

and which would be available on an on-demand basis.

7.6.3. The appellant, Helen Duffy Fahy, expresses concern that Briarhill Business Park can

be difficult to enter/leave at peak times, that parking proposals are inadequate and that the

local road network cannot accommodate traffic arising from the development.

7.6.4. Regarding parking proposals, Table 11.5 contains parking standards for various

forms of development. For hotel developments it requires that parking be provided at a rate

of 1 space per bed but with additional requirements for elements such as restaurants, bars

and lounges, function rooms, etc. As part of its assessment of the application, the Planning

Authority expressed concern regarding parking proposals at both the AI and CAI stages,

advising at both stages of the requirement to provide 301 spaces in total.

7.6.5. I have given consideration to the requirements of the CDP and also NPO 13 of the

National Planning Framework, which outlines that in urban areas, planning and related

standards, including in particular building height and car parking will be based on

performance criteria that seek to achieve well-designed high-quality outcomes in order to

achieve targeted growth. The Galway Transport Strategy also promotes modal shift towards

sustainable travel forms and reducing dependency on the private car, by controlling access

to car parking in the city. In my opinion, in view of the proximity of the site to public

transport, a parking ratio of 1.03 spaces per bedroom is adequate.

7.6.6. Regarding accessing the site from Parkmore Road, the Transportation Assessment

Report and Preliminary Mobility Management Plan assesses the capacity of the junction of

Briarhill Business Park and Parkmore Road using PICADY software, with an opening year of

2022 and design year of 2037. In both scenarios the junction is shown to operate well below

its capacity, with a maximum RFC of 0.32 during the AM peak and a maximum RFC of 0.64

during the PM peak for 2022 and with a maximum RFC of 0.47 during the AM peak and a

maximum RFC of 0.85 during the PM peak for 2037.

7.6.7. For the 2037 scenario, the B-A junction stream (traffic turning southbound onto

Parkmore Road) is shown to be approaching operational capacity, but it remains below

capacity. Given the layout of the junction, this may also give rise to queueing for northbound

traffic, but I am satisfied from the information available to me that any delays fall within

acceptable limits.

7.6.8. I am aware of the appellant expresses concern that Briarhill Business Park can be

difficult to enter/leave at peak times but the submission is not supported by any evidence

that would cause me to question the assessment provided with the application. From the

information available to me, I am satisfied that the Briarhill Business Park junction can

accommodate development traffic.

7.6.9. Regarding traffic levels more generally, the Report includes a survey of traffic levels

of local roads from November 2019 and models trip distribution from the development in

the opening year of 2022 and design year of 2037. It can be seen from the distribution

model that Parkmore and Monivea Roads are predicted to experience increased traffic levels

in the period up to 2037, with the proposed development contributing low numbers to

background traffic levels. The development is predicted by the TRICS database to generate

55 two-way movements in the AM peak and 49 two-way movements in the PM peak. In

both the 2022 and 2037 scenarios, the development is predicted to give rise to a very low

increase in background traffic levels.

7.6.10. The shuttle bus service proposed as part of the AI response has been proposed in

outline form and no additional details have been provided. Such a service will assist in

reducing the demand for parking on the site, will reduce trip generation and will also improve

connectivity to the city centre. Should the Board decide to grant permission, I recommend

a condition be attached requiring the applicant to submit and agreement proposals for the

provision of a shuttle bus service.

7.6.11. The road network in the vicinity of the site is a well-known traffic blackspot and the

applicant acknowledges that Parkmore Road experiences moderate to heavy traffic during

peak periods. The Transportation Assessment Report and Preliminary Mobility Management

Plan does not contain an assessment of junction capacity at the junction of Parkmore Road

and Monivea Road. In view of the heavily trafficked nature of the road network in the area,

the Board may wish to clarify whether the junction will operate within or over its capacity in

the opening and design years.

7.6.12. I note appellant comments regarding the proposed mobility management plan and

I am inclined to agree that the absence of connectivity to the main part of the city will impact

options for access on foot or by bike. This limited connectivity to the surrounding area

means the development is likely to be car and public transport dependent. Notwithstanding

this, the implementation of a mobility management plan for staff will assist in encouraging

access by active or sustainable transport means, potentially reducing traffic movements. In

this context, I recommend that if the Board decide to grant permission, a condition be

attached requiring the applicant to implement a mobility management plan as part of the

development.”

75. The second report includes a section 2.3 as follows:

“Proposed Building Height

2.3.1. The proposed development comprises an 8-storey over basement, 186 No. bedroom

hotel with a gross floor area of 12,478sqm, which includes below ground pool, plant

equipment, tank room, standby generator and pumping station. The proposed design

comprises two linked eight storey blocks, each of which has a contemporary monopitch roof.

The linking section also has an eight-storey height and is heavily glazed, incorporating a flat

roof. At the AI stage the applicant proposed minor revisions to the design, including in

respect of elevational design and treatments and materials.

2.3.2. My report dated 25th November 2022 analysed the proposed building height in the

context of the Urban Development and Building Heights Guidelines for Planning Authorities

(2018) and concluded that the proposed building height is acceptable.

2.3.3. In the period since that report was discharged, the new Galway City Development

Plan 2023 – 2029 (CDP) has been adopted, as part of which an Urban Density and Building

Height Study was prepared. The Study identifies 4 broad neighbourhoods within Galway

City, which reflects those neighbourhoods identified in the 2017-2023 City Development

Plan. The Board will note that the identified neighbourhoods do not encompass all of the

administrative boundary of Galway City, as can be seen in Figure 29 of the Study.

2.3.4. The subject site does not fall within any of these designated neighbourhoods and is

most closely aligned to the Outer Suburbs designation, which encroaches to the south side

of Bothar na dTreabh. In the Outer Suburbs, the Study guides that the prevailing 2-3 storey

building should prevail and that opportunities should be taken to push for marginal height

increases in appropriate locations.

2.3.5. Section 8.8 of the CDP states that suggested ranges of scale and intensity outlined

within the Urban Density and Building Heights Study are a guide and are not absolute

measures to be pursued or achieved and each site should be considered on its merits. The

proposed 8-storey over basement building height clearly exceeds the envisaged prevailing

height for lands to the south, but I consider there are other factors to be considered.

2.3.6. Applying the various analyses of Urban Density and Building Heights Study, the site

is in proximity to public transport, a designated District Centre, open space and community

infrastructure. The only identified sensitivity constraint relates to its elevated topographical

location. I am satisfied, based on the Urban Density and Building Heights Study that the

site is suitable for a taller building.

2.3.7. Section 8.8 of the CDP provides a range of criteria that are required to be addressed

as part of proposed developments for taller buildings. My assessment of the proposal in the

context of these criteria is set out below: -

Heritage Assets and their Setting: The site is not in proximity to a Protected Structure or

structure contained on the National Inventory of Architectural Heritage and is also not in

proximity to a designated Architectural Conservation Area.

Design Quality: The building has a contemporary design and comprises of two effective

wings, which are separated by a break in the building that allows for natural light to each

room. I am satisfied that the proposed design incorporates sufficient architectural and visual

interest to make a positive contribution to the urban neighbourhood and streetscape.

The proposed hotel will be a prominent addition to surrounding views, but I consider this is

related to the low-rise character of Briarhill Business Park and other development north of

Bothar na dTreabh and is, in my view, an inevitability of the development of a taller building

on the site.

Townscape Rationale: The site is located within Briarhill Business Park, it is accessed from

Parkmore Road and it benefits from a direct pedestrian connection to Briarhill Shopping

Centre, via a pedestrian underpass that routes under Bothar na dTreabh. Briarhill Shopping

Centre contains a mix of commercial, retail, office and residential uses.

The site served is served by public transport, via bus stops on the R339 and Parkmore Road.

The applicant identifies there are 6 bus-stops within 270m of the site and that it is served

by 2 bus routes (Nos. 401 and 409) which provide city bus services every 10-20 minutes.

Eyre Square is also identified as being a 19-minute cycle from the site.

In terms of access, Bothar na dTreabh is a National Primary Route, which connects to the

M6 to the east and which routes around the northern side of Galway City

Tall Building Statement: Whilst a tall building statement was not provided with the

application, a number of supporting assessments were provided with the application,

including a Design Report and an Urban Response Summary report, which was provided at

the AI stage. In my view, these supporting assessments provide justification for the

proposed development and receiving environment, in the context of the CDP requirement.

Impact Assessment: My report dated 25th November 2022 detailed assessment of visual,

daylight and sunlight, overlooking and overshadowing and ecological impacts associated with

the development. In summary: -

Regarding visual impact, the proposal is likely to be a dominant feature in views from the

east and west, along Bothar na dTreabh. But as I have set out elsewhere, the site is not

located within a sensitive or protected landscape or conservation area and is proximate to

other taller buildings including the Clayton Hotel and an approved development of up to 7

storeys adjacent to the junction of Bothar na dTreabh and the Eastern Approach Dual

Carriageway (Reg. Ref. 18/25 refers).

I do not consider significant or unacceptable overlooking or overshadowing issues arise,

given the urban location and the commercial/business uses in the vicinity of the use.

Bedrooms will overlook to the east, west and north but none of the adjacent sites contain

uses that are sensitive to overlooking Shadow cast onto the west-adjoining site/building is

likely to be significant in the mornings, but there are limited window openings on the east

elevation of that commercial building and the external area of the site is used for car parking,

so any such effect is likely to be limited.

Regarding ecology, the subject site is an undeveloped, overgrown site that contains a

hardcore surface. In view of its condition and location within a noisy and built environment,

I consider the site provides limited ecological value and the development is unlikely to have

a significant or unacceptable impact on local flora or fauna.

Sustainability and Climate Benefits: An Energy & Sustainability Statement was submitted

with the application, which states that the building will target a Net Zero Carbon strategy

and that it will meet or exceed Nearly Zero Energy Buildings (NZEB) requirements. It further

states that 40% of operational energy will be provided by renewable means, together with

other building design measures.

The Engineering Services Report provides further detail of climate adaptation measures, in

the form of surface water drainage proposals, and I note that a green roof is proposed and

that drainage via infiltration is provided for under permeable and bio-retention/landscaped

areas.

I am satisfied that adequate consideration has been given to sustainability measures as part

of the development.

Public Realm: Landscape plan drawing No. BHH-BDP-L-PL-20-00-1100, provided as part of

the AI response, identifies landscaping principles for the site (detailed species proposals are

not provided). It identifies a public realm corridor on the eastern flank of the hotel, with

planted areas to the front, centre and rear of the building. A community play space is also

proposed, adjacent to the south-east corner of the hotel. I am satisfied that appropriate

public realm, amenity, landscaping, rest and play spaces are incorporated into the

development. My report dated 25th November 2022 recommended that a condition be

attached requiring the applicant to submit and agree detailed landscaping proposals with the

Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development.”

76. The second report deals with car parking as follows (emphasis added):

“Car Parking

2.4.1. The development includes 193 No. car parking spaces, together with bicycle parking

spaces. A shuttle bus service was also proposed as part of the AI response submission. A

Transportation Assessment Report and Preliminary Mobility Management Plan was submitted

with the application.

2.4.2. The new CDP requires that parking be provided at the following rates, for hotel

developments: -

Bars and Lounges (including Hotel Bars) 1 space per 8 m2 gross floor area

Function Rooms (including Hotel function 1 space per 10 m2

rooms)

Hotels (in addition to the above) 1 space per bedroom

These parking standards are as per those contained in the 2017-2023 development plan and

the Board will note that Section 11.11.1 of the CDP states that they represent maximum

standards, to be applied using performance-based criteria appropriate to the location.

2.4.4. The development includes a bar and lounge at lower ground floor level, with a

combined stated area of 438sqm. The hotel contains 186 No. bedrooms. Taken together,

they generate a requirement 241 No. parking spaces based on the CDP table.

2.4.5. From a review of floor plan drawing No. BHH-BDP-A-PL-20-1201, I note that meeting

rooms 1-4 and 8 are small, self-contained spaces that are unlikely to be suitable for any

largescale function use. Meeting rooms 5 and 6 are shown to incorporate bi-folding doors

and together with meeting room 7, I consider they have the potential to be used for function

use. In such circumstances, they would generate a requirement for an additional 19 No.

spaces.

2.4.6. Having considered Planning Authority’s Reports on the application, it appears to me

that the Planning Officer is of the view that the meeting room element of the hotel generates

its own requirement for parking, at the rate of 1 space per 10m2. However, having

considered Table 11.5, I do not share this view. The Board will note that the CDP makes a

specific provision for ‘Hotel Bars’ and ‘Hotel Function Rooms’ (Table 11.5 of the CDP refers)

but it does not make specific provision for hotel meeting rooms and, in view of this,

this element of the hotel use appears to me to fall under the general ‘Hotel’ parking

requirement.

2.4.7. In my report dated 25th November 2022 I outlined that the National Planning

Framework requires that in urban areas, planning and related standards, including in

particular building height and car parking will be based on performance criteria that seek to

achieve well-designed high-quality outcomes in order to achieve targeted growth. I further

outlined that the Galway Transport Strategy also promotes modal shift towards sustainable

travel forms and reducing dependency on the private car, by controlling access to car parking

in the city.

2.4.8. Section 2.13 of the Preliminary Travel Plan states that Parkmore Road is very well

served by Bus Services (Bus Eireann service Nos. 401 and 409) with both routes operating

on an approximate 20-minute peak frequency, linking the site to Eyre Square, the City

Centre and Salthill. Having reviewed available Bus Eireann timetables for these routes, I

note that the 401 route runs every 20 minutes between 06.05-23.45hrs, when the service

finishes, and the 409 route runs every 10 minutes between 05.50-19.00hrs, reducing to

every 15 minutes thereafter until 00.00hrs when the service finishes. Each of these services

provides multiple stops across the city, including connections to other public transport

modes. In my view, this provides the site with a reasonable level of public transport service

across the day.

2.4.9. As I have outlined, the CDP parking standard is a maximum requirement and the

CDP Section 11.11.1 states that they will be subject to a range of tolerance that enables

alternative solutions to be proposed to achieve stated outcomes. Given the urban, accessible

location of the site, which is served by regular public transport, and where the applicant

proposes additional connectivity to public transport nodes in the City Centre, it is my view

that the proposed car parking facilities accord with the provisions of the National Planning

Framework and are acceptable.”

77. In the final report post-remittal, the inspector said as follows (emphasis added):

“3.2.3. The applicant’s submission provides a detailed justification for the proposal, in the

context of the GCDP, and includes additional supporting reports in the form of a Tall Building

Statement and Visual Impact Appraisal, prepared by Model Works, and a Supplementary

Appeal Document, prepared by BDP Architects. In summary, it is contended that the

development complies with the requirements of both the GCDP and UDBHS.

3.2.4. Regarding the issue of the site location, whilst I have considered the third parties’

detailed submission on the issue, I do not agree that the site location is inaccessible. As has

been outlined in both of my previous reports on this application, the site lies within the

Metropolitan Area for Galway City, it is located within an established Business Park

that contains a mix of commercial and business uses and it is located on a public

transport corridor. Section 1.5.3 of the GCDP outlines that there is a focus on

aligning employment and housing growth along existing and planned transport

corridors, with specific reference to increased usage of public transport. Consideration

should also be given to NPO11 of the National Planning Framework which outlines

that there will be a presumption in favour of development that can encourage more

people and generate more jobs and activity within existing cities, towns and

villages. I am satisfied that the site location is accessible.

3.2.5. Regarding building height, the primary control over building heights in Galway City

is the UDBHS and the parties disagree over how it should be implemented. The third parties

argue that the UDBHS makes no provision for the subject development at this site, whereas

the first party argues that the UDBHS does not provide prescriptive guidance regarding non-

residential development in the area of the subject site and that a more general assessment

of relevant policies and objectives is thus required.

3.2.6. As I outlined in my Addendum Report, the UDBHS identifies 4 broad neighbourhoods

within Galway City: The City Centre; Inner Residential Areas; Established Suburbs; and

Outer Suburbs. The Board will be aware that the identified neighbourhoods do not

encompass all of the administrative boundary of Galway City, as can be seen in

Figure 29 of the Study, and the subject site falls outside of these designated

neighbourhoods. It is most closely aligned to the Outer Suburbs designation, which

encroaches to the south side of Bothar na dTreabh.

3.2.7. The third parties’ essential point regarding the application of the UDBHS is that as it

does not expressly provide for the subject development at this site, the subject development

is at odds with it. I do not agree with this proposition. Section 8.8 of the GCDP states

that densities and ranges that are outlined within the UDBHS are ‘suggested

ranges of scale and intensity…and are not absolute measures to be pursued or

achieved and each site should be considered on its merits. Densities and heights

lower or higher than those outlined in the study may be appropriate when assessed

against other relevant policy and guidance.’ It is clear to me, based on the above, that

the GCDP requires a site-by-site assessment of proposals for tall buildings, having regard to

the provisions of the UDBHS and other relevant policies.

3.2.8. My Inspector’s Report dated 25th November 2022 contains a criteria-based

assessment, in the context of development management criteria outlined at

Section 3.2 of the Urban Development and Building Heights Guidelines for Planning

Authorities (2018) and my Addendum Report contains a further criteria-based

assessment, in the context of the development management criteria contained at

Section 20.5 of the UDBHS. Both of these assessments should be read in conjunction

with this report, where it can be seen that I consider the site is a suitable location for

the provision of a taller building.

3.2.9. The issue of exceptional design quality was identified in the Board’s Order on Ref.

ABP-313102-22 and is raised in each of the submissions, as I have outlined above. 3.2.10.

The proposed architectural design is addressed in detail in both my original Inspector’s

Report and my Addendum Report, where it can be seen that I consider the proposed

design incorporates sufficient architectural and visual interest to make a positive

contribution to the urban neighbourhood and streetscape.

3.2.11. As I have outlined, the first party submission includes a Tall Building Statement and

Visual Impact Appraisal and a Supplementary Appeal Document. With particular reference

to the Visual Impact Appraisal, I note and would concur with the categorisation of

viewpoint sensitivity at each of the chosen viewpoint locations as being low to

medium and would also concur, as has been set out in the previous reports, that

the development will be a significant intervention in a number of the available

views. I also agree with the submission that there is no sensitive aspect of the

receiving environment that requires protection from the development of a tall

building.

3.2.12. To conclude, having examined the additional submissions received, I consider that

no significant new information or comment has been made that would result in a different

recommendation to that originally made in the Inspector’s Report dated 25th November

2022 and Addendum Report dated 5th December 2023 on Ref. ABP313102-22.”

Reasons (core grounds 1, 3 and 4 in part)

78. The law on reasons has been dealt with on several occasions by the Supreme Court: Connelly

v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2021] 2 I.R. 752, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 45 (Clarke C.J.) (O’Donnell,

Dunne, O’Malley and Finlay Geoghegan JJ. concurring); Balz v. An Bord Pleanála [2019] IESC 90,

[2023] 3 I.R. 751, [2020] 1 I.L.R.M. 367 per O’Donnell J.; Naisiúnta Léictreach Contraitheoir Éireann

Coideachta Faoi Theorainn Ráthaoichta v. Labour Court & Ors. [2021] IESC 36, [2022] 3 I.R. 515,

[2021] 2 I.L.R.M. 1. It is settled law that main reasons on main issues are required, and that certain

issues are to be viewed objectively as main reasons given the nature of the process or decision at

issue – for example if it is in dispute as to whether key statutory criteria for the decision have been

satisfied.

79. As acknowledged by the commission in submissions, where the commission is disagreeing

with a council (Sherwin v. An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 26, [2023] 1 JIC 2701 (Unreported, High

Court, 27 January 2023)) or with its own inspector on a point on which the grant or refusal of

permission turns, such an issue is virtually by definition a main issue, speaking objectively, such

that a decision not to give reasons on it would be held to be erroneous (Crekav Trading GP Ltd v.

An Bord Pleanála & Ors. [2020] IEHC 400 (Unreported, High Court, Barniville J., 31 July 2020);

Clonres CLG v. An Bord Pleanála & Ors. [2021] IEHC 303 (Unreported, High Court, 7 May 2021);

O'Donnell v. An Bord Pleanála [2023] IEHC 381 (Unreported, High Court, 1 November 2023);

Killegland Estates Ltd v. Meath County Council [2023] IESC 39 (Unreported, Supreme Court, Hogan

J., 21 December 2023); Ventaway v. An Coimisiún Pleanála [2025] IEHC 406 (Unreported, High

Court, 16 July 2025) and Phelan Walsh v. An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 533 (Unreported, High

Court, Nolan J., 8 October 2025) at 53 citing Connelly v. An Bord Pleanála [2018] IESC 31, [2021]

2 I.R. 752, [2018] 2 I.L.R.M. 453 (Clarke C.J.)). In the case of the inspector, there is the additional

factor that by contrast with a normal case where the commission adopts the inspector’s reasons, in

a case where the commission disagrees it must come up with reasons of its own.

80. The commission puts the matter fairly well, if they don’t mind me saying so, in the following

submission:

“23. Further, it is acknowledged that where the Commission departs from the

recommendation of its inspector, that the standard is one of ‘meaningful engagement’

(Konisberry v. An Bord Pleanála [2024] IEHC 194 at §18-40, Morehart v An Bord Pleanála

[2025] IEHC 418 and Walsh v An Bord Pleanála [2025] IEHC 533 at §79-§82). What that

means in practice is that where the Commission does not accept the Inspector’s

recommendation, it must (i) come up with its own reasons and (ii) engage with the

Inspector’s rationale (Clonres v An Bord Pleanála [2021] IEHC 303 at §99) - that standard

was also met here. In other words, the Inspector’s recommendation is a main issue which

must be addressed (Ó Murthuile at §24).”

81. Reasons primarily arise under core grounds 1, 3 and 4 (in part).

82. Core ground 1 is:

“1. The Board’s Decision is invalid because the Board failed to indicate the main reasons

for not accepting the Board’s Inspector’s recommendation to grant permission contrary to

section 34(10)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and/or failed to provide any,

or any adequate reasons for the Decision contrary to the general administrative duty to give

reasons.”

83. The parties’ positions as recorded in the statement of case are summarised as follows:

“Applicant’s position

1. The Commission failed to provide reasons for departing from the recommendation

of its Inspector in deciding to refuse permission for the Proposed Development, given that

the (i) obligation on the Commission to provide intelligible and adequate reasons for its

Decision; (ii) duty is ‘enhanced’ where the Commission departs from the recommendation

of its Inspector; and (iii) any issue on which the Inspector would have granted permission

is a ‘main issue’ in the appeal which requires reasons to be provided.

2. In this case, the Commission’s Inspector produced three reports which contained

detailed and favourable findings on the site suitability, contextual height assessment, and

exceptional design quality of the Proposed Development. Despite this, the Commission

departed from the recommendation of its Inspector in refusing permission. In doing so, the

Commission only provided minimal conclusions, if any, regarding height, scale and massing

and did not provide reasons for rejecting its Inspector’s analysis. It is the Applicant’s position

that the conclusions and considerations provided by the Commission fall short of the level

of reasoning required by s.34(10)(b) of the 2000 Act and by the well-established

jurisprudence on the duty to give reasons.

3. Furthermore, it is the Applicant’s position that the Commission mischaracterised the

site as being located within an outer suburban area where there is a prevailing height of 2-

3 [storeys], contrary to the explicit findings otherwise of its Inspector. No reasons were

provided by the Commission for this departure from the recommendation of its Inspector.

The caselaw is clear, reasons must be sufficient to allow the Applicant to understand why

the decision was reached and to permit meaningful judicial review. The reasons provided

by the Commission do not meaningfully assist the Applicant in understanding the basis upon

which the Commission’s Decision was reached.

Respondent’s position

1. The Commission provided clear, comprehensible reasons for its Decision which

engaged with the submissions of the Applicant and the recommendations of its Inspector.

The enhanced duty to give reasons where the Commission does not accept its Inspector’s

recommendation is such that these recommendations become some of the main issues on

the application and therefore, in line with the established case law, the Commission is

required to address these recommendations in its Decision.

2. In the premises, the Commission did in fact adequately address these

recommendations. Clear reasons are provided as to why the Commission did not consider

the design quality of the proposed development to be of a high quality, nor that it would be

appropriate to diverge from the prevailing building heights of 2-3 storeys in the locality to

permit the development of an 8-storey hotel. The Commission noted that the departure

from the prevailing building heights was not in accordance with the provisions of the UDBHS

which had been incorporated into the Development Plan.

3. Read as a coherent whole, in a manner which makes sense, the Decision clearly

considered it appropriate to address the building height by reference to the locality, being

the eastern outer suburbs – as did the Inspector. In accordance with the Development Plan,

the Commission considered whether an increase in height would be appropriate, but

ultimately concluded that it would not, on the basis that the proposed development

constituted an unwarranted departure from the prevailing building heights in the locality,

contrary to the terms of the Development Plan and the UDBHS.

4. Contrary to the established case law, what Core Ground 1 seeks is an exhaustive

narrative of the reasons. In line with obligations, the Commission provided clear,

comprehensible reasons on the main issues such that the Applicant was aware of the overall

basis for the Decision, and why the Commission differed from the Inspector’s

recommendation. In the premises, no relief arises under Core Ground 1.”

84. Core ground 3 is:

“3. The Board’s decision is invalid as it failed to take relevant considerations into account

in its considerations relating to 8.7(8) of the Galway City Development Plan 2023-2029 and

the Galway City Urban Density & Building Heights Study 2021.”

85. The parties’ positions as recorded in the statement of case are summarised as follows:

“Applicant’s position

1. The Commission failed to have regard to a further relevant consideration, namely

§8.7(8) of the GCDP and UDBHS. Section 19.4 of the UDBHS relates to ‘East – Doughiska,

Roscam, Ardaun’. There are two issues which arise with the approach taken by the

Commission to the UDBHS in its Decision. First, the Commission is of the mistaken view

that the site of the Proposed Development is located within the Eastern Outer Suburbs. The

site of the Proposed Development is not located in the area marked on the UDBHS as Eastern

Outer Suburbs but is immediately adjacent to this area. Secondly, the Commission

repeatedly refers to a prevailing height of 2-3 storeys where no such prevailing height exists

(a) for non-residential development within the Eastern Outer Suburbs, or (b) at the site of

the Proposed Development which is not located in the Eastern Outer Suburbs. It is well

established that the Commission must correctly construe and apply relevant planning

documents and that misinterpretation constitutes an error of law.

2. In addition to the foregoing, the Commission failed to have regard to relevant

considerations, that begin the existing buildings in excess of 2–3 storeys (including Briarhill

Shopping Centre, the Clayton Hotel and Maldron Hotel), and failed to consider the UDBHS

guidance permitted increased height where sensitivities are low. As a result of having regard

to such irrelevant considerations, the Commission misdirected itself as to the law.

Accordingly, the Applicant submits that the decision is irrational and invalid.

Respondent’s position

1. The provisions of the Development Plan set out clearly that the building heights in

the UDBHS are a relevant consideration in the assessment of any application for

development. (i.e both residential and non-residential development). Therefore, in relying

on the building height guidelines in the UDBHS, as the Commission did, there was no legal

error. Further, in circumstances where the Commission clearly cited and applied §8.7 of the

Development Plan, the Applicant’s contention that this was not considered is plainly

unstateable.

2. The Commission correctly considered the application by reference to the criteria

applicable to the Eastern Outer Suburbs, consistent with the approach of the Inspector.

3. Contrary to the Applicant’s position, the Commission did not consider itself bound

by the building heights in the UDBHS but rather considered, with reference to the UDBHS as

required by the Development Plan, that exceeding the prevailing building heights (which

apply to both residential and non-residential development) in the manner proposed was not

in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. As with

Core Ground 1, the assertion that the Commission mischaracterised the locality of the

proposed development is misconceived.

4. Further, any purported reliance by the Applicant on separate grants of planning

permission, or the provisions of inapplicable Local Area Plans, is, with respect, misconceived.

A separate grant of planning permission for a separate development cannot bind the

Commission, nor can the Commission determine the application by reference to a Local Area

Plan which does not apply to the area of the proposed development – although it is notable

that the proposed development was in breach of the LAP sought to be relied upon by the

Applicant.”

86. Core ground 4 is:

“4. The Board’s Decision is invalid because it misconstrued the requirements of the

Galway City Development Plan 2023-2029 in relation to the issue of car parking

requirements, failed to take relevant considerations into account and acted irrationally.”

87. The parties’ positions as recorded in the statement of case are summarised as follows:

“Applicant’s position

1. The Commission misdirected itself in relation to the provisions for car parking as

provided in the GCDP by failing to have regard to a relevant consideration, namely, the

National Planning Framework (‘NPF’). The GCDP mandates a performance-based approach

consistent with the NPF. The Applicant’s Travel Plan demonstrated that the site is adequately

served by sustainable transport modes, and the Inspector accepted this analysis. The

Commission rejected it without identifying any evidential basis or addressing NPO 13. The

Applicant contends that the Commission’s reasoning fails to engage with the mandatory

performance-based framework contained in the Development Plan and does not explain why

it rejected the Inspector’s finding in respect of same. The Applicant further submits that the

Commission improperly introduced new concerns not raised previously and without giving

the Applicant an opportunity to respond.

Respondent’s position

1. The Commission correctly interpreted the provisions of the Development Plan

providing for car parking provision, both in terms of the actual quantitative requirements,

and the terms of the provision allowing for divergence from these requirements.

2. Table 11.6 of the Development Plan requires hotels to provide 1 parking space per

room, 1 parking space per 8m2 of bar space, and 1 parking space per 10m2 of function

room space. In the particular circumstances of the proposed development, the Development

Plan thus prescribed a minimum of 260 spaces for the proposed development, which instead

provided for 193 spaces.

3. In the exercise of its expertise, the Commission exercised its judgment not to permit

a development which was in breach of the car parking requirements of the Development

Plan in circumstances where it considered that the public transport provision for the

proposed development was insufficient to warrant such a deviation from the parking

requirements. This conclusion was reached in circumstances where it was considered that

the travel plan submitted by the Applicant did not justify the proposed departure from the

car parking provision in the Development Plan.

4. Further, there is no obligation on the Commission to provide reasons for a departure

from the Development Plan, nor is the Commission bound in any application for development

by a previous application for development.”

88. While the complaint is generally framed as one of reasons rather than misinterpretation, it

may be helpful to set the scene in relation to the latter first. Sherwin v. An Bord Pleanála [2024]

IESC 13 (Unreported, Supreme Court, Woulfe J., 11 April 2024) (Charleton, O’Malley, Baker and

Murray JJ. concurring) emphasises a number of critical points:

(i) The importance of the development plan is well established: Attorney General

(McGarry) v. Sligo County Council [1991] 1 I.R. 99, [1989] I.L.R.M. 768 (Walsh J.)

(Hederman and McCarthy JJ. concurring); Byrne v. Fingal County Council [2001]

IEHC 141, [2001] 4 I.R. 565 (McKechnie J.) (Sherwin paras. 90-92).

(ii) “It is well established that the interpretation of a development plan is

ultimately a matter for the courts. Any misinterpretation of the development

plan by the relevant planning authority is an error of law which goes to jurisdiction.

It is also well established that the development plan is not to be treated as if it were

a piece of primary or secondary legislation emanating from skilled draughtsmen, and

inviting the exceptive canons of construction applicable to such material. Instead,

a development plan falls to be construed in its ordinary meaning as it would be

understood by members of the public without legal training, as well as by developers

and their agents, unless the document, read as a whole, necessarily indicates some

other meaning” (Sherwin para. 96, emphasis added).

(iii) As regards what is a contravention, “Certain aspects of the plan may have a high

level of specificity. In those cases, it may not be at all difficult to determine whether

what is proposed is in contravention of the plan, and it would only remain to exercise

a judgment as to the materiality of any such contravention. However, at the other

end of the spectrum, it is not uncommon to find objectives in a development plan

which may, to a greater or lesser extent, be properly described as aspirational. Such

objectives may be expressed in general terms. In such cases, a much greater degree

of judgment may need to be exercised as to whether the development proposed

amounts to a material contravention of the development plan.” (Sherwin para. 95

citing Maye v. Sligo Borough Council [2007] IEHC 146, [2007] 4 I.R. 678 (Clarke

J.)).

(iv) “the first question must be the nature of the determination (if any) actually made

by the decision-maker, ‘as to whether or not the proposed application as a

matter of law and fact would materially contravene the development plan’,

(per Costello J. in [South-West Regional Shopping Centre Promotion Association

Limited v. An Bord Pleanála [2016] IEHC 84]), in circumstances where there has

been the required focus by the decision-maker on the specific provision of

the plan allegedly materially contravened. In my opinion that question is the

crucial starting point, before one gets to the questions as to the standard of review

by the court.” (Sherwin para. 105, emphasis added). See also Wilson v. An Bord

Pleanála [2025] IEHC 523 (Unreported, High Court, 3 October 2025) per Farrell J.

(v) Thus where “the details of this planning application, and the materials before the

Inspector and the Board, clearly required a focus by the Board on [a specified]

policy” (Sherwin para. 106), this has the consequence that, even if the material was

“not expressly alleging a material contravention of the development plan in terms”

(Sherwin para. 107), the position is that “[i]n the circumstances it [is] incumbent

on the Inspector to make a determination as to whether or not the proposed

development, as a matter of law and fact, would materially contravene [the

specified] policy” (Sherwin para. 108, emphasis added).

(vi) “the first step in making the required determination was for the Inspector to

consider the text of [the] policy … and to interpret that text to some degree, in

terms of what she understood it to mean. In many cases the interpretation of such

a provision may be clear and even self-evident, but in other cases there may be

some lack of clarity requiring some level of engagement with the text.” (Sherwin

para. 109, emphasis added). “it was necessary for the Inspector to give some

indication as to her understanding of what the test meant, before she

moved on to her application of that test, as so interpreted, to the facts of this

planning application.” (Sherwin para. 110, emphasis added).

(vii) These requirements are not discharged merely by a planning assessment

that permission should – or indeed should not - be granted. Thus in Sherwin,

“opinion as to Block D1 comfortably sitting side by side with existing protected

structures, without detriment to their character, cannot be viewed as an implicit or

indirect assessment of compliance with policy CHC2. It appears from the sentences

which followed this opinion that the opinion is essentially based on one

consideration, that structures from different periods can co-exist within the same

land parcel etc, rather than based on the considerations expressly stipulated in policy

CHC2.” (para. 114).

89. We can then look at the reasons complaint under a number of headings.

Lack of reasons in relation to whether the project was within the Doughiska outer

suburban area

90. The commission argues that issues regarding the site location criteria of the plan were not

pleaded as errors of interpretation but rather as ones of reasons:

“31. The Commission agreed with the Inspector as regards the need to assess the site

by reference to the criteria relevant to the Outer Suburbs. Notably, this conclusion is not

under challenge in these proceedings. In other words, it is common case between everyone

that the correct criteria by which the application had to be assessed is that relating to the

Outer Suburbs. The only issue which arises in the proceedings relates to the reasons for the

Commission's assessment, in respect of which they disagreed with the Inspector.”

91. The applicant however is not accepting that the outer suburb criteria apply and is impliedly

putting that in issue to the limited extent of complaining about the commission disagreeing with the

inspector. Sub-grounds 18 to 20 in the applicant’s statement of grounds provide (emphasis added):

“18. The Board’s decision is expressly premised on the assertion that the proposed

development is contrary to Policy 8.7(8) of the City Development Plan which seeks to adhere

to the Galway City Urban Density and Building Height Study (2021) (the ‘UDBHS’). The

Board’s finding in this regard was based on the Spatial Strategy for the Outer Suburbs set

out in the UDBHS, which states that the prevailing 2-3 storey building height pattern should

continue and any opportunities to increase the height of new buildings above the prevailing

height in the area should be marginal.

19. The Board did not address the fact that Inspector expressly found that the

subject site was not comprised in the Outer Suburbs (but was rather closely aligned

thereto) and that, in any event, the UDBHS was expressly stated to be a guide as

opposed to an absolute measure. At §2.3.5 of the Addendum Report, this is noted in

terms by the Inspector:

‘Section 8.8 of the CDP states that suggested ranges of scale and intensity outlined within

the Urban Density and Building Heights Study are a guide and are not absolute measures to

be pursued or achieved and each site should be considered on its merits. The proposed 8-

storey over basement height clearly exceeds the envisaged prevailing height for the lands

to the south, but I consider there are other factors to be considered.’

20. Indeed, §8.8 of the GCDP demonstrates very clearly that where assessed in detail

against other relevant policy and guidance, as was the case here across three Inspector’s

Reports, lower or higher densities and heights than those outlined are available on a case-

by-case basis:

‘These suggested ranges of scale and intensity are a guide and are not absolute measures

to be pursued or achieved and each site should be considered on its merits. Densities and

heights lower or higher than those outlined in the study may be appropriate when assessed

against other relevant policy and guidance.’”

92. The inspector very carefully noted at 3.2.6 that this site fell outside the defined outer

suburban area, and phrased the matter, accurately, by saying that it was “most closely aligned” with

that area. The commission contradicted this subtle but important distinction by stating baldly that

this was an outer suburban area. One can’t say that that distinction makes no difference, if for no

other reason than that the relevant policies for the Doughiska area do not formally apply.

93. Clearly the fact that the project fell outside the outer suburban area was a factor for the

inspector in creating flexibility that would allow approval. The commission did not give reasons as

to why location outside that area (and thus the non-application of the development criteria for that

area) did not add to the flexibilities available.

94. The commission incorrectly argues:

“43. The Applicant places significant emphasis on the fact that the Inspector noted that

the location of the proposed development was ‘most closely aligned to the Outer Suburbs

designation’ while the Commission Order records that the proposed development was

located within the Outer Suburbs. Leaving aside the fact that the Commission is correct

about the location of the proposed development, the distinction between the Inspector and

the Commission is one without a difference. Both approached the issue on the basis that

the assessment had to be carried out by reference to the criteria relevant to the Outer

Suburbs. Consequently, no obligation to give reasons for doing something differently than

the Inspector arose. Notably, the Applicant does not allege any error in the interpretation

of the Development Plan as regards the assessment of the application by reference to the

criteria for the Outer Suburbs. The challenge is limited to a reasons challenge.”

95. The distinction is not one without a difference because it is not correct that the assessment

“had to be” (i.e., was required by an imperative instrument to be) carried out by reference to an

imperative instrument that did not apply. Even if the instrument is taken as a guide, by analogy,

the very fact that it does not apply gives a degree of flexibility that would not exist if it did apply.

The applicant phrases the matter as one of reasons (in effect, that comes down to a lack of reasons

for not regarding the formal non-application of the outer suburban policy as creating more flexibility).

It would have been more logical and intellectually satisfying had this been phrased as an error of

interpretation (in concluding that the development site was within the outer suburban area), but it

comes to the same thing either way.

Lack of reasons in relation to lack of sensitivity in receiving environment

96. The commission argues:

“38. §46(a) refers to 3.2.11 of the Inspector’s Second Addendum Report dated 5

November 2024 and suggests that the Commission failed to address that ‘there are no

sensitive aspects to the receiving environment that require protection from the development

of tall buildings’. At §3.2.11 of the Second Addendum Report dated 5 November 2024 the

Inspector addresses the visual impact of the proposed development as regards protected

views and notes that ‘the development will be a significant intervention in a number of the

available views. I also agree with the submission that there is no sensitive aspect of the

receiving environment that requires protection from the development of a tall building’. No

issue arises in this respect as the absence of a sensitive aspect of the receiving environment

that requires protection is not relevant to the central conclusion of the Commission, namely

that the proposed development was not consistent with the prevailing height of the

surrounding area and that the design of the proposed development was not to an exceptional

standard to justify such an increase in height.”

97. The problem with that argument is that it is a misunderstanding to say that the sensitivity

of the receiving environment was “not relevant” to the height issue. The receiving environment is

always relevant, particularly when there are flexibilities in the plan (due to this being formally outside

the policies for outer suburbs, and due to section 8.8).

98. The commission makes no reference to the crucial issue that this is not a sensitive location,

specifically not located within a sensitive or protected landscape or conservation area as identified

by the inspector, and gives no reasons why this is not an important factor in favour of the applicant.

99. The commission did not address the flexibilities in the CDP in the context of issues such as

those raised by the applicant and discussed by the inspector. That flexibility can be viewed through

the lens of the commission’s failure to address the inspector’s reliance on section 8.8 of the CDP

which allows departure from the policies at 8.7(8).

Lack of reasons in relation to not applying section 8.8 of the CDP

100. Insofar as the commission went on to launch the assumption that exceeding the “prevailing

height in this outer suburban area” is “therefore … contrary to the Galway City Urban Density and

Building Height Study (2021), [and] the Galway City Development Plan 2023 – 2029” (emphasis

added), if words mean anything that is an assertion that a finding of non-compliance with the text

concerned gives rise to a contravention, which implies an unreasoned unwillingness to

acknowledge, still less apply, the flexibilities in section 8.8.

101. Indeed much of the commission’s decision incorrectly uses the language of obligation. It

held that “the proposed development would be contrary to Policy 8.7(8) which requires adherence

to Galway City Urban Density and Building Height Study 2021” (emphasis added). The CDP does

not “require adherence” because section 8.8 goes on to allow for flexibility.

102. The discussion omits any consideration of section 8.8 which was central to the inspector’s

reasoning and which has the effect that non-compliance may be permissible on a case-by-case

examination notwithstanding exceeding the prevailing height. Such excess does not in itself

(“therefore”) amount to non-compliance with the CDP.

103. In relation to the complaint of not giving reasons for not applying this flexibility and thus in

effect of considering itself bound by the development criteria for the outer suburbs, the commission

submits:

“68. Further, insofar as the Applicant alleges that the Commission wrongly considered

itself bound by the heights set out in the Building Height Study, it is clear from the Decision

that this contention is incorrect and wholly misconceived. Rather than considering itself

bound by these building heights, the Commission clearly considered whether it would be

preferable to exceed the heights set out in the Building Height Study and concluded that it

would not, by reference to the mass, scale and form of the proposed developments, its

relationship with the surrounding area, and the absence of any justification in national policy

permitting such a divergence from the building heights, noting in particular that the proposed

development was in an outer suburban area on the periphery of the built-up area.”

104. That defence unfortunately highlights what is missing from the decision. It is only national

and regional policy that was considered to be not outweighing – the flexibility in city policy was not

even referred to despite being clearly a major issue for the inspector. The applicant makes this

point expressly in sub-ground 23:

“23. Finally, the Board does not outline, beyond reference to the National Planning

Framework and National and Western Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy by name, how

the policies contained therein did or did not justify a departure from the prevailing two-three

storey character of the of the surrounding area (which in any event is not the correct

standard to be applied, as is discussed in further detail below.)

24. The Board is obliged to state the main reasons for its decision where it disagrees

with the findings of its Inspector in this regard, notwithstanding the fact that the Inspector

had found the proposed building height of the development to be acceptable in three distinct,

thoroughly reasoned reports.

25. Furthermore, no information has been provided by the Board such that the Applicant

can understand why the Board differed from its Inspector or assess whether there was any

basis for suggesting that the Board's decision is unsustainable.”

105. Insofar as it was argued at the hearing that the statement “the policies in the National

Planning Framework or the National and Western Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy regarding

the promotion of compact settlement growth did not justify such a fundamental departure from the

prevailing two-three storey character of the surrounding area” is a finding that this is not compact

growth and thus a finding that consideration of the 2018 guidelines fails at the first hurdle, that is

complete post hoc reprogramming of the decision. The most natural interpretation is an

acknowledgement that policies favour the project but that these were outweighed by the character

of the surrounding area. But no reasons are given for not going on to consider the performance

criteria in such policies before coming to a conclusion of insufficiency. Admittedly the applicant

didn’t plead SPPR 3 but even leaving that aside, the policy does require a criteria-based assessment,

which the inspector engaged in but the commission did not.

106. The commission, in its wholesome, ongoing and welcome attempts to assist the court in

keeping the jurisprudence consistent, forcefully urges the court not to view a failure to make

exceptions as being something that requires reasons:

“77. Insofar as the Applicant complains that the Commission did not give reasons for

allowing a departure from the Development Plan standards, no such obligation is placed on

the Commission in that regard. The Commission relies on AAI Baneshane at §119 ...”

107. Here we come to a delicate subtlety. AAI Baneshane (I) was dealing with a different

situation, which was that the commission had come to a lawful view that the application as made

should be rejected. The point on which they disagreed with the inspector (that was addressed at

para. 119) was whether the project could be saved by conditions. The point there was that there

was no obligation to give reasons for not operating such an exception. But we need to be careful

not to overgeneralise from any given snippet of jurisprudence – it depends what the “exception” is.

108. The commission’s power to save a proposal by conditioning it is essentially discretionary.

Empirically perhaps it could be within the realm of the reasonable to suggest that they may be a bit

sparing about it at the moment, if caselaw is anything to go by. But be that as it may, it remains a

matter of discretion, and a lawful decision on a project doesn’t become unlawful because they don’t

give reasons for not reconfiguring the project, which they are not obliged to do. The fact that an

inspector wanted such reconfiguration doesn’t create an obligation to give reasons which would not

otherwise exist – given the nature of the discretionary option we are talking about.

109. In addition, many policies across government have clauses for exceptional cases. It would

be unworkable if after analysing the policy, a decision-taker had to give reasons for not regarding

the case at hand as being exceptional. Reasons as such are not generally called for in that type of

context.

110. Things are different when the “exception” is a specific provision in the policy or plan and

where there is something significant in the process that specifically makes the possible application

of the exception a main issue. An applicant or other process participant asking for an exception is

rarely going to make that a main issue in itself, so reasons don’t normally arise on foot of that alone.

But an inherently flexible policy with a specific “exception” requiring case-by-case treatment that is

relied on decisively by an institutional actor in the process to recommend a different result certainly

catapults the question of exceptions into the realm of being a main issue where reasons are required.

Such reasons are lacking here. I will return below to the somewhat more impactful status of

disagreeing with an institutional actor as opposed to merely not accepting a submission.

Lack of reasons in relation to design

111. As the applicant pleads at sub-grounds 13 and 14:

“13. At §3.2.10, the Inspector addresses the issue of exceptional design quality, noting

that the proposed architectural design had been addressed in detail in his previous reports

in the context of the 2023 Decision, which contained his finding that ‘the proposed design

incorporates sufficient architectural and visual interest to make a positive contribution to the

urban neighbourhood and streetscape.’

14. At §3.2.11, the Inspector noted that a Tall Building Statement, Visual Impact

Appraisal and Supplementary Appeal Document had been included in the submission made

on behalf of the Applicant. Relevantly, the Board’s Inspector noted as follows:

‘With particular reference to the Visual Impact Appraisal, I note and would concur with the

categorisation of viewpoint sensitivity at each of the chosen viewpoint locations as being low

to medium and would also concur, as has been set out in the previous reports, that the

development will be a significant intervention in a number of the available views. I also

agree with the submission that there is no sensitive aspect of the receiving environment that

requires protection from the development of a tall building.

[3.2.12.] To conclude, having examined the additional submissions received, I consider that

no significant new information or comment has been made that would result in a different

recommendation to that originally made in the Inspector’s Report dated 25th November

2022 and Addendum Report dated 5th December 2023 on Ref. ABP-313102-22.’”

112. The central complaint under this heading is pleaded as follows:

“22. While the Board Order states that it ‘did not share the Inspector’s view that

exceptional design quality had been demonstrated due to the mass, scale and form of the

proposed development and its relationship with the surrounding area’, no subtending reason

whatsoever is provided for this bald statement.”

113. The basic problem for the commission is that the inspector invested quite some effort and

detail in outlining the specifics of the development in terms of design, layout, finish, contribution to

place-making and other relevant aspects.

114. The vague, generic and formulaic reference to “mass, scale and form” as a reason for

rejecting the inspector’s view of design quality contrasts markedly with the latter’s detailed

examination of particular features of the development and falls more on the side of assertion rather

than legally sufficient reasoning when set against such a detailed analysis.

Lack of reasons in relation to car parking

115. The applicant resumes the attack on the reasoning of the decision under the car parking

heading. Again there is a striking contrast between the detailed criterion-by-criterion analysis of

the inspector and the generic dismissal by the commission.

116. In such circumstances I would uphold the complaint pleaded as follows:

“56. The Board’s basis for refusal in relation to car parking provision is grounded in the

finding that the Applicant ‘had not sufficiently demonstrated or justified the reduction in car

parking provision below the standards required in the development plan.’

57. However, the car parking provision standards set out in the GCDP, as described at

§11.1.1 and set out at Table 11.6 therein, are expressly stated to ‘be applied using

performance-based criteria appropriate to general location, in line with the National Planning

Framework (NPF) requirements. These standards will be subject to a range of tolerance that

enables alternative solutions to be proposed to achieve stated outcomes.’

58. The Board’s assessment did not take the provisions of the NPF, which were relevant

considerations, into account. At page 67 of the NPF, the following is outlined in relation to

standards:

‘In particular, general restrictions on building height or universal standards for car parking

or garden size may not be applicable in all circumstances in urban areas and should be

replaced by performance-based criteria appropriate to general location, e.g. city/town

centre, public transport hub, inner suburban, public transport corridor, outer suburban,

town, village etc.’

59. This policy approach is reflected in NPO 13, which was referenced in the Appeal

Submission at §3.1.1, and which states:

‘In urban areas, planning and related standards, including in particular building height and

car parking will be based on performance criteria that seek to achieve well-designed high

quality outcomes in order to achieve targeted growth. These standards will be subject to a

range of tolerance that enables alternative solutions to be proposed to achieve stated

outcomes, provided public safety is not compromised and the environment is suitably

protected.’

60. It is clear that it was precisely this approach which was followed by the Inspector in

addressing the issue of Car Parking Standards at §2.4.1. et seq. of the Addendum Report:

‘The development includes 193 No. car parking spaces, together with bicycle parking spaces.

A shuttle bus service was also proposed as part of the AI response submission. A

Transportation Assessment Report and Preliminary Mobility Management Plan was submitted

with the application.’

61. The Travel Plan concluded, at §§5.3 and 5.4, that:

‘the proposed development is appropriately located adjacent to transport facilities, including

bus services as well as employment zones and local facilities. It is also well served by

pedestrian and cycle linkages. The site is ideally placed to take advantage of non-car modes

of travel. Reduced car parking numbers are proposed for the scheme in line in compliance

with National Policy and guidance.

This report demonstrates that the proposed development will have an unnoticeable impact

upon the established local traffic conditions and can easily be accommodated on the road

network, with all commuter peak hour traffic increases being below TII recommended

threshold levels.’

62. At §§2.4.7. and 2.4.8., the Inspector noted that, the Travel Plan identified a

reasonable level of public transport requirements in line with National Planning Framework

criteria which require that car parking should be based on performance criteria that seek to

achieve well-designed high quality outcomes in order to achieve targeted growth. Having

reviewed the applicable bus timetables, the Inspector noted that ‘Each of these services

provides multiple stops across the city, including connections to other public transport

modes.’

63. At §2.4.9, the Inspector found that:

‘As I have outlined, the CDP parking standard is a maximum requirement and the CDP

Section 11.11.1 states that they will be subject to a range of tolerance that enables

alternative solutions to be proposed to achieve stated outcomes. Given the urban, accessible

location of the site, which is served by regular public transport, and where the applicant

proposes additional connectivity to public transport nodes in the City Centre, it is my view

that the proposed car parking facilities accord with the provisions of the National Planning

Framework and are acceptable.’

64. Insofar as the Board disagreed with this assessment, it failed to provide adequate

reasons, contrary to section 34(10)(b) of the 2000 Act. The Board did not provide any detail

beyond the mere assertion that the applicant had not sufficiently demonstrated or justified

the reduction in car parking provision below the standards required in the development

plan.”

117. Ultimately, the following problems arise in terms of lack of reasons under this heading:

(i) generally the commission’s stark disagreement is just assertion rather than a

reason;

(ii) there is no engagement with the detailed analysis by the inspector and no reason

given as to why the public transport services specifically identified by the inspector

do not constitute an adequate service;

(iii) there is no reference to the inspector’s reliance on city and national policy as a

reason for grant permission notwithstanding the shortfall in parking as against the

CDP, so no reasons were given for disagreement; and

(iv) nor does the commission make any reference to NPO 13 or address the performance

criteria as considered by the inspector.

Overall conclusion on reasons

118. Reasons have a particular resonance when the commission is disagreeing with planning

expertise at council level or in the inspectorate. The hierarchical relationship of the various roles

concerned means that the commission does indeed have the power to disagree, but they must do

so in an transparently reasoned way. Somewhat generic responses are insufficient even if they

might pass muster against a challenge by a disappointed process participant who received no support

for her position from institutional actors within the decision-making process. (I can add that such a

conclusion is consistent with the decision in Friends of the Irish Environment CLG & Anor. v. Minister

for Housing, Local Government and Heritage & Ors. [2025] IECA 128 (Unreported, Court of Appeal,

5 June 2024) per Hyland J. (Costello P. and Collins J. concurring) at para. 148, to the effect that it

is for the decision-taker in the first instance to decide whether submissions raise relevant issues;

but by contrast with that scenario, inherent objective features of the process such as the views of

institutional actors may of themselves demand reasoned engagement if the decision-taker is going

to disagree.) Here there is so much lacking from the decision, and so many of the inspector’s

perfectly reasonable points as to why permission should be granted have been airbrushed out of the

discussion altogether without response or even acknowledgement, that one can readily conclude

that there is pervasive and non-severable absence of reasons in the decision.

119. That said, and leaving aside any issue of law of interpretation of the CDP, I am not implying

that the commission’s evaluative perspectives were outside the range of the reasonable. Whether

this is a positive development, supporting economic growth, making the best use of the site and

providing a landmark on the approach to Galway city along the N6 (no more problematic than, say,

the RedClick Building on the N3 approach to Dublin city, within the Blanchardstown Retail Park –

which may or may not be a relevant comparison but which just comes to mind out of various possible

examples), or whether by contrast planning policy would be best served by a reduction in height

and rooms and a corresponding reduction in the exceedance of car-parking standards, is a matter

on which people may have to agree to differ. Quot homines, tot sententiae, as Terence allegedly

put it.

120. While I will be proposing remittal in the order, subject to the views of the parties, the

applicant is best placed to evaluate the pros and cons of pressing the first party appeal and/or of

proposing any other clarifications in the appeal context and/or of considering a new application to

the council as an alternative or parallel option. Conversely, while the commission isn’t required to

assist an applicant by conditioning a proposal, it would be unfortunate if an overly formal or precious

approach were to be taken to consideration of such options generally, perhaps as yet another

instance of the pendulum swinging to the contrary direction when difficulties arise. If a court can

on occasion attempt to identify options for practical resolution of cases and invite comment, it isn’t

unacceptable for other entities to do so either in relation to the decisions they have to make. At the

level of general principle there wouldn’t be anything problematic about a system which envisaged

the commission inviting participant’s views on, for example, conditioning height reductions, if that

is something they are minded to do and assuming that that can be accommodated within the

statutory framework, which I am not opining on. Whether that would make a project unviable is

something best coming from the applicant rather than the commission, and the fact that it makes a

potentially consented project materially different from that applied for is not in itself a reason for

refusal (because at the level of principle there isn’t anything impermissible about change in the

project in the course of the process) – it depends on whether the change gives rise to a real planning

issue that potential process participants could disagree with (like the last-minute change in White v.

Dublin City Council [2004] IESC 35, [2004] 1 I.R. 545, [2004] 2 I.L.R.M. 509 that introduced an

overlooking issue that had previously been considered by the third parties and found not to be an

issue: see the judgment of Fennelly J. (Murray, Mc Guinness and McCracken JJ. concurring)). If the

change is such that there is no basis to anticipate that it would be viewed as a worsening of the

position by any potential process participant (frequently height reduction comes into this category,

assuming the applicant for permission acquiesces), there may be a case for arguing that it just

absorbs energy and cost (for the commission and potentially for the court as well) to refuse and

then grant a subsequent modified application than to allow a conditioned project in the first place.

I appreciate the human tendency to overcompensate but there isn’t anything inherently suspect

about dialogue and consultation by public bodies, however independent, or at the level of principle

about modifying something as a result.

Other grounds

121. In such circumstances it is not necessary to deal with core grounds 2 or 5 or the balance of

core ground 4 (or indeed any points under core grounds 1 and 3 that are not dealt with above).

Summary

122. In outline summary, without taking from the more specific terms of this judgment:

(i) it is settled law that the commission must give adequate reasons for disagreeing

with its inspector; and

(ii) applying such law to the facts here, the commission did not do that.

Order

123. For the foregoing reasons it is ordered that:

(i) there be an order of certiorari by way of application for judicial review quashing the

order of the respondent, An Coimisiún Pleanála, made on 12 December 2024, to

refuse permission for the construction of, inter alia, an eight-storey over basement,

186-bedroom hotel with below ground pool plant equipment, tank room, standby

generator and pumping station (gross floor area: c. 12,478 m2) and associated

works on Site 4, Briarhill Business Park, Bóthar na dTreabh, the townlands of

Ballybrit and Doughiska, Galway (ABP-320582-24);

(ii) there be an order remitting both the first and third party appeals back to the

respondent to be considered and determined in accordance with this judgment, and

that in accordance with O. 103 r. 36(1)(a) RSC, subject to any contrary submission

of the parties within 7 days, the remittal be to the point in time immediately after

the inspector’s third report (dated 5 November 2024);

(iii) unless any party applies otherwise by the time and in the manner set out below, the

foregoing order be perfected forthwith thereafter on the basis of an order for costs

(including reserved costs if any and the costs of written submissions) being awarded

to the applicant against the respondent, and that any issue as to the extent of the

costs be determined, in default of agreement, in the legal costs adjudication process;

(iv) for the avoidance of doubt, the order for costs shall include an order for the costs of

legal costs adjudication;

(v) for the avoidance of doubt, any unsuccessful application to vary any provisional

order as to costs proposed in the judgment may be addressed pursuant to O. 103 r.

40(4) RSC;

(vi) the foregoing proposed orders as to costs, directions or the form of the order be

subject to contrary written legal submission within 7 days, with replies by other

parties within a further 7 days; and

(vii) the matter be listed on Monday 23 February 2026 to confirm the foregoing.