IEHC 86 — IEHC 86 — High Court

[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 2

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.” 3

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 4

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. 5

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 6

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 7

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. 8

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. 9

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 10

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): 11

“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. 12

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 13

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) 14

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. 15

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 16

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 17

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 18

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. 19

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 20

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. 21

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 22

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. 23

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 24

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 25

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. 26

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.” 27

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 28

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. 29

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 30

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. 31

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.