The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s approval to build 486 apartments as part of a Strategic Housing Development in south Co Dublin.
The proposed development, which received planning permission last September, would have entailed the demolition of a disused religious house and the construction of 496 apartments in three blocks, a creche and two retail units and associated developments.
The development was to be built on lands located at Taylor’s Lane and Edmondstown Road, Ballyboden, Dublin 16, by developer Shannon Homes Construction, that had formerly been used as a Catholic seminary and chapel by the Augustinian Order, and a pitch and putt course.
In a detailed judgment delivered on Monday, Mr Justice David Holland ruled in favour of an application by Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group, aimed at overturning planning permission for the apartments.
The judge said he was quashing the decision on grounds including that the board had failed to take public transport capacity for the area properly into account when arriving at its decision to give the proposed development the go-ahead.
Residential density
He also said the proposed development had a residential density of some 142 dwellings per hectare, which he said was in breach of the aims and objectives of a development plan for the area.
The applicants, represented by FP Logue Solicitors, sought to have the decision quashed on several grounds including that the board had erred in its assessment of traffic impacts that the proposed development would have on the greater Rathfarnham area.
In addition, the group claimed that both the developer and the board were wrong to conclude that the residential density of the proposed scheme was not a material contravention of the development plan for the locality.
Other grounds of their application included an alleged failure by the board to have any, or adequate regard, under the EU Directive on Habitats for the protection of bats and otters in the area and a failure to properly consider height guidelines when granting planning permission.
The action, which was opposed, was against the board. South Dublin County Council and the developer were notice parties to the proceedings.
Board failures
In his judgment quashing the decision, Mr Justice Holland said there was a failure by the board to recognise or address what amounted to material contravention of the Development Plan, which he said was relevant, regarding the density of the proposed scheme.
The judge also ruled that that the board failed to consider a relevant consideration as to the capacity of the public transport network and give adequate reasons for its decision on density in that context.
The reasons given by the board on the issue of traffic, specifically as to the disagreement between the traffic experts regarding methodology and the reliability of the results arising from the application of that methodology, was also inadequate, the judge added.
All other grounds raised by the applicant in its action were dismissed by the judge.
