A High Court judge has permitted the manager of a neighbouring apartment building to appeal his ruling determining how An Bord Pleanála should reconsider a planning application for 102 build-to-rent homes in Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin.
The proposal by Fitzwilliam DL Ltd is to demolish a two-storey vacant dwelling on the grounds of St Michael’s Hospital and to build apartments up to 13 storeys high. The development would also include two retail units, private residential amenity space and a cafe unit.
Permission granted for this by An Bord Pleanála was challenged by Crofton Buildings Management CLG, manager of the adjacent Harbour View apartment development, and by Stephanie Bourke, of Carrickbrennan Road, Monkstown, who owns an apartment in Harbour View.
However, after the challenge was initiated in the High Court, the board conceded to the objectors.
How does VAT in Ireland compare with countries across Europe? A guide to a contentious tax
‘I was a cleaner in my dad’s office, which makes me a nepo baby. I got €50 a shift’
Will we have a tax liability if Dad gives us his home while he is alive?
Finding a solution for a tenant who can’t meet rent after splitting with partner
The issue then became one of whether the High Court should remit the planning application back to the board for reconsideration or whether the decision should be simply quashed.
The developer, Fitzwilliam, a notice party in the case, sought remittal to the board.
The board, in written submissions, also favoured remittal on the basis that either it could ensure fair procedures via an oral hearing or, if it couldn’t, it would have to refuse permission.
Crofton argued against remittal and sought that the April 2021 decision be simply quashed.
Last December, Mr Justice David Holland decided it should be remitted and that, in reconsidering, the board must have regard to the latest Dún Laoghaire Development Plan, which came into being in 2022. He also directed there should be an oral hearing to achieve fair procedures.
As a result, Crofton asked the judge to certify an appeal of that decision to the Court of Appeal. In such cases, a right of appeal is not automatic and must be certified by the High Court.
Crofton argued that in giving the directions in relation to remittal, the judge exceeded his powers or departed from the relevant legislation under which any re-decision on remittal falls to be made.
In a judgment, Mr Justice Holland agreed to certify for an appeal on a number of points of law for the purposes of section 50A (7) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The case comes back before him next week.
This article was updated on May 19th.
