A High Court action by the Christian Brothers aimed at compelling Dublin City Council to grant a default planning permission for a major development of 171 houses and apartments on 3.4 acres of lands owned by the order at Dublin's North Circular Road has been settled.
The terms of settlement include the payment by the Brothers of a €2.2 million development contribution, the making of certain planning applications by the order and the execution of an agreement between the sides under Section 47 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000.
Final orders were made yesterday in the Commercial Court, the commercial division of the High Court, by Mr Justice Peter Kelly who was told the Christian Brothers had complied with the terms of settlement, set at the end of last year.
Mr Justice Kelly made an order quashing a decision of Dublin City Council of June 23rd, 2005, granting permission for the development on 21 conditions and directed that the council issue a grant of planning permission within two weeks.
The planning permission is subject to a condition that, before any development commences, the developer shall enter into an agreement with Dublin City Council under Section 96 of the Planning and Development Act and in accordance with the requirements of the Dublin City Council housing strategy.
In earlier hearings, the court was told a planning application was received by the council on November 4th, 2004, for the development at 274 North Circular Road of 171 residential units, consisting of terraced houses, duplexes and apartments, 191 car parking spaces and ancillary works.
Permission was also sought for the demolition of Highfield House and a gate lodge.
The council argued they were prepared to grant permission for the development but only subject to 21 conditions, including a condition restraining the Brothers from demolishing the late 19th century gate lodge described by the council as unique.
The Brothers wished to demolish the lodge to widen the entrance to the development and said they would re-erect it on another part of the lands.
Local residents' groups also objected to the development on grounds including loss of amenity, loss of views and loss of a large number of trees.
In their action, the Brothers sought to quash a permission granted by the council on June 23rd, 2005.
They claimed that permission was decided outside the relevant time limits and therefore was null and void.
They claimed they gave no written consent within eight weeks to the council's application to extend the time for making a decision on the application which written consent was required under the relevant planning Acts.
The council had claimed that, if a default permission was granted on the basis of the Brothers' claim that the council failed to decide on the planning application within the relevant time limits, this would permit the Brothers to carry out a large development "unfettered" by any conditions.