Controversy-plagued planning board may face a FLOOD of multi-million euro cases querying previous decisions because of this one DISASTROUS flaw - and taxpayers will be left to pick up the tab...

Published: 11:33, 10 July 2026 | Updated: 11:37, 10 July 2026 A systemically flawed IT system that has cost taxpayers at least €5million has been found to be falsifying public planning records, the Irish Mail on Sunday can reveal. The controversy-plagued An Coimisiún Pleanála is now desperately scrambling to implement a new IT system in the wake of damning criticism by a High Court judge. The planning authority – which is chaired by former HSE chief Paul Reid – is also assessing the potential consequences the IT debacle could have on other cases. Problems with the Commission’s ‘Plean-IT’ platform were only revealed as part of a judicial review that concluded last week.  Judge David Holland said the IT problem resulted in the planning authority breaching its statutory responsibilities by unintentionally falsifying accurate records.  He said the problem was ‘clearly systemic, unlikely to have been a one-off lapse’ and ‘not minor’. He said the problem ‘could not have arisen had its design and installation been properly supervised and effected’. The problem with the IT system emerged as Judge Holland quashed a decision by the Commission that gave the green light for the expansion of a waste storage area at the controversial Aughinish Alumina refinery in the Shannon estuary in Co. Limerick. The IT system glitch became apparent as Judge Holland quashed a planning board decision allowing for the expansion of a waste storage area at the Aughinish Alumina refinery The refinery – owned by an associate of Russian president Vladimir Putin – is also the focus of a Government investigation into claims material exported from the plant has been used to manufacture Russian arms used in Ukraine. In order to keep operating beyond 2031, the refinery must extend its waste storage area. But now, as a result of last week’s ruling, extension plans have been sent back to the drawing board. The judicial review was brought by Environmental Trust Ireland (ETI), a voluntary group run by Limerick solicitor Michelle Hayes.  The judicial review was brought by Environmental Trust Ireland (ETI), a voluntary group run by Limerick solicitor Michelle Hayes  ETI’s legal team included Dr Breda Hayes, a sister of Michelle Hayes, as well as senior counsel Oisín Collins and junior counsel Edmund Sweetman. The case was won on environmental safety grounds including concerns about seepage of effluent and flood risk from the adjacent Shannon basin.  These concerns will now have to be addressed in any new application for permission filed by Aughinish Alumina. In his 177-page ruling, Judge Holland admonished An Coimisiún Pleanála for failing to spot that its IT system was falsifying planning records. This is because a flawed design feature resulted in the names of inspectors and board members listed as having voted at planning decision meetings being replaced in certain circumstances by others who did not even attend the meetings. The judge noted the Commission was breaking the law by failing to keep accurate records. Under the Planning and Development Act 2000, the Commission’s board is obliged to ‘keep a written record of all its decisions including the names of those present at a meeting of the board and the number of those persons who vote for or against those decisions’. This requirement in law is to guarantee transparency and fairness by ensuring the public can see which planning inspectors and Commission members are involved in decisions on cases. Judge Holland praised ETI for bringing the case – which inadvertently revealed the serious IT problems at An Coimisiún Pleanála. ‘ETI has done the Commission and the public interest a considerable service,’ his ruling said. The wider consequence of the defective IT system, beyond the Aughinish Alumina case, has yet to be established.  Last week a Commission spokesman said it was considering grounds for an appeal as it ‘does not agree with the tenor’ of Judge Holland’s ruling and ‘does not accept there is an issue with the integrity of Plean-IT software’. The spokesman said the Plean-IT system maintains ‘a correct record of who was in attendance at each board meeting’. According to the Commission, ‘the issue here is not the correctness of the record, but the manner in which a Board Meeting Record print-out is generated’. The Commission said that since it was now aware of the print-out issue, it would not occur again.  Addressing the likelihood of previous cases being affected, the spokesman said it was ‘extremely rare a case is decided by differently constituted boards’. According to An Coimisiún Pleanála’s annual reports, the agency has faced more than 500 judicial reviews since the IT system was commissioned a decade ago.  In 2024 alone, it was hit with 147 judicial review cases. This level of litigation could suggest many involved in an active case against the Commission may now seek to establish if the records in their case are accurate – and whether the IT system has other yet-to-be-discovered failures. The planning authority – which is chaired by former HSE chief Paul Reid – is also assessing the potential consequences the IT debacle could have on other cases  Judge Holland said the Commission’s response to the IT problem had ‘unimpressively failed to display necessary appreciation of the gravity of its software flaw for its statutory record -keeping’. He wrote: ‘It is deeply unimpressive both that the problem should have arisen in the first place and that it went unnoticed by the Commission until illuminated by litigation.’  The judge stressed he was ‘sure there was no malintent by anyone’ at An Coimisiún Pleanála ‘as to record-keeping’. But he was scathing of the attitude displayed by Commission officials once the IT problem was identified during the Aughinish Alumina case.  He noted it as ‘at least odd’ that Commission officials in their affidavits appeared to show ‘no recognition’ that the IT flaw ‘described a real problem for the integrity of the Commission’s statutory records’. He said there appeared to be no acknowledgement from the Commission of ‘the alarming significance’ of the IT problem, which he described as ‘systemic’. In one affidavit, the Commission’s head of legal, Kevin Baneham, described how the internal IT system ‘automatically adjusted’ earlier records.  Judge Holland described this phrase as ‘verbal drab’, adding: ‘It could just as accurately but more informatively have read “the earlier records are automatically falsified”.’ He warned that the defective software feature ‘must be disabled as soon as possible so that the records of meetings accurately, and permanently, record those involved in each meeting’. He said it was ‘clearly systemic, unlikely to have been a one-off lapse’, was ‘not minor’ and it ‘could not have arisen had its design and installation been properly supervised and effected’. He said: ‘While such things can happen in well-regulated environments, it should not have persisted had its operation thereafter been monitored and supervised.  'It should have readily been spotted by those in the Commission daily using the system. ‘It should not have required litigation to unearth it. The duration of the software problem and the scope (whether great or small) of its falsifying effects remain unascertained – at least as a matter of public knowledge.’ Although Judge Holland acknowledged the issue will now be addressed, he further warned: ‘It remains unresolved and is far from a merely historic matter.’ Last Friday – the day the judgement was published – the Commission’s legal firm, Philip Lee, wrote to the Registrar of the High Court to complain about Judge Holland’s use of the word ‘falsification’. The Commission was granted an opportunity this week to make a direct application to Judge Holland in which its lawyers sought to have the judgement amended. At a hearing on Thursday, which was observed by Suzanne Murray, senior counsel for Aughinish Alumina, the Commission’s senior counsel, Aoife Carroll, argued the judgement’s wording should be changed to remove reference to ‘falsification’. However, Judge Holland said to change the wording of a published ruling would be ‘exceptional’ and ‘inherently undesirable’, adding that he had carefully considered the use of the word false in the original judgment and was conscious of its potential connotations. Sorry we are not currently accepting comments on this article.