A property development company has challenged Fingal County Council’s refusal to extend planning permission for a proposed retirement village and hotel on the site of the old Baldoyle racecourse in Dublin.
Barford Holdings Ltd, based in the Bahamas, has brought the action concerning lands owned by it at Main Street and Coast Road, Baldoyle.
On Thursday, Declan McGrath SC, for Barford, said it obtained permission from An Bord Pleanála in 2015 to construct the retirement facility and hotel on the lands.
The proposed development is “substantial” and the permission was for a retirement facility with 150 en suite bedrooms, two libraries, quiet rooms, roof terraces and rooms for patient care, he outlined.
The proposed hotel has 134 rooms, 16 suites, a swimming pool, gym, spa, business centre, restaurant and conference centre, he added.
The permission was due to expire in July and Barford had last May applied to have it extended, he outlined.
In late July, the council had said it could not do so on grounds including there had been a significant change in the development objectives in the area development plan since permission was granted in 2015.
The proposed development would no longer be consistent with the land use zoning objective and the proper planning and sustainable development of the area and would materially contravene its development plan, the council added.
Mr McGrath, with Emily Egan McGrath BL, instructed by solicitor Brian Delahunt, argued the council had erred in its interpretation of the relevant development plans for the area and contrary to fair procedures.
Not significant
While there had been a change in the development objectives since 2015, the change was not significant and would not make the proposed development inconsistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area, counsel added.
The council had also failed to take into consideration the objectives of a 2013 local area plan for Baldoyle-Stapolin, he argued.
In its judicial review proceedings against the council, Barford wants various orders including orders quashing the refusal to extend planning permission and remitting the application to the council for a fresh determination.
Permission to bring the challenge was granted, on an ex-parte basis, by Mr Justice Charles Meenan who returned the matter to November.
