A High Court judge has overturned planning permission for more than 300 apartments at Dublin's Docklands and criticised An Bord Pleanála for what he described as a "certain laxity" in its examination of the developer's documents.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys also said the Bord had effectively "cut and paste" a developer's submission on a certain aspect of the development concerning light in the apartments.

A new application will now have to be made.

The challenge was brought by a tooling company, Atlantic Diamond, which is a leaseholder at the Docklands Innovation Park in East Wall, having taken out a 35 year lease.

The court heard it was one of the few remaining leaseholders at the park which was originally zoned for industrial use and now zoned for strategic development and rengeneration of the area in the Dublin City Development plan.

In its challenge to the decision of An Bord Pleanála the company claimed there was a failure to give adequate reasons permitting 336 apartments in an industrial estate which it claimed was "a grave planning error" and said parents would not let children play unattended for fear of being run over by a lorry or truck, it claimed.

It argued that the board failed to have adequate regard for the company’s submissions on the unprecedented nature of the development, traffic and pedestrian safety, access for HGVs and unworkability of an asserted internal roadway within the development site.

The judge overturned the permission on a number of grounds, including the board’s failure to provide a clear reason why the alleged unprecedented nature of the development was not a countervailing consideration to the grant of permission.

He held Atlantic was not provided with the main reasons for the main issues raised by it, including why its submissions about movements of heavy vehicles and the use of outdoor equipment were rejected.

The board failed to apply the correct test concerning the applicable standard for daylight and sunlight for the development for the purposes of residential amenity, he found.

The board failed to identify the living room in every apartment has a shared use with a kitchen, with the effect the higher minimum ADF (average daylight factor) value of 2% should apply, not 1.5%, he said.

The board and its inspector accepted documents from the developer concerning light guidelines for kitchens and living rooms which failed to reflect what was being dealt with were combined kitchens and living rooms.

Had the board properly addressed these matters, the problem would have come to light and this illustrated "a certain laxity in scrutiny, involving in effect the cutting and pasting of the developer’s materials, without adequate critical interrogation", he said.

The 2018 building height guidelines for planning authorities are not permissive, as argued by the board, but are mandatory statutory guidelines which require the decision maker to have appropriate and reasonable regard to identified standards, he held.