Plans for a contentious 131-apartment development in Clontarf will be reviewed by An Coimisiún Pleanála (ACP) after the case was kicked back to it by the High Court.
The planned build-to-rent apartment scheme, on Seafield Road East, attracted significant local opposition.
In total, 377 separate objections were lodged against the plans – including submissions from then-Fianna Fáil TD Seán Haughey, two local councillors, and five residents’ associations.
An Bord Pleanála (now An Coimisiún Pleanála) granted fast-track permission under the now-expired strategic housing development regime for the planned residential project.
READ MORE
The board’s December 2021 approval of the four apartment blocks of up to six storeys at Redcourt, Seafield Road East, was challenged by Martin Stapleton, who lives in a neighbouring property at Seacourt.
Mr Justice David Holland quashed ACP’s decision, noting that a roofed courtyard did not constitute “open” space.
“The space is either open or it is not. While the possibility of a third of intermediate category of space was discussed at trial, in the end that is irrelevant,” Mr Justice Holland said in his February 2024 judgment.
He noted that the open louvres between the long edges of the roof and the buildings below do not turn the courtyard into an open space “just as an open window does not turn indoor space into outdoor space”.
He also found that the board had failed to consider whether it should seek information from Dublin Bus about its capacity to service the area at peak times.
A large number of the objections from local residents related to the impact of the proposed development on the 130 bus route. The judge would go on to say that “objecting local residents invoked their daily peak hour experience of standing at bus stops watching full buses pass them by”.
He said the capacity of the 130 route was considered by ACP, but that correspondence with Dublin Bus relied upon by the developers Savona Ltd in their application was not supplied to the planning commission.
Only once in the correspondence made available to the court did it emerge that it “manifestly [did] not live up to its billing” and was in relation to a different development, with the judge noting he found the developers’ position on the matter “distinctly unimpressive”.
Mr Justice Holland said the planning application should be remitted for fresh consideration by the board.
ACP sought to refer the decision to the Court of Appeals, but the High Court judge did not find grounds for an appeal in April 2025. The existing case before ACP was reactivated on Tuesday, following the perfection completion of the court order.
A decision is due on the reactivated planning application in December.
