High Court clears way for challenge to Rathfarnham apartments

Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group seeks court order quashing permission for six blocks

Core grounds of the Ballyboden challenge include  the claim that the approval of the proposed build materially contravenes the development plan and the local area plan in relation to zoning.

Core grounds of the Ballyboden challenge include the claim that the approval of the proposed build materially contravenes the development plan and the local area plan in relation to zoning.

 

The High Court has cleared the way for a local group to bring a legal challenge against An Bord Pleanála’s approval of 114 build-to-rent apartments in Rathfarnham, Dublin.

The Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group is seeking a court order quashing the permission for the six apartment blocks proposed for a site off Stocking Lane by developer Ardstone Homes Limited, a notice party to the proceedings, which received planning permission in September.

Among the core grounds of challenge was that the approval of the proposed build materially contravenes the development plan and the local area plan in relation to zoning.

The group, represented by FP Logue Solicitors, also seeks a number of declarations from the court, including that two articles in Irish regulations for the protection of habitats are invalid due to what they allege is a mis-transposition of an article of a European Union directive.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys gave the group permission to bring its judicial review action against the board over its fast-track approval of the development as a Strategic Infrastructure Development.

Zoning objective

The Attorney General and South Dublin County Council are also respondents in the case.

It is claimed the zoning objective of the land is for “new residential communities in accordance with approved area plans”. The development materially contravenes the local plan in relation to dwelling mix, phasing strategy and density, the group claims.

Further, the applicant says the distance between a block in the proposed development and houses in another estate is less than the 35m required under the county development plan.

The permission is also invalidated, the group claims, as the developer did not accurately fill out an application as per regulatory requirements.

Further, it is claimed the board failed to consider adequately or at all the cumulative effects of the proposed development on the environment as set out in the Planning and Development Act 2000.

The approval is also invalidated by the development’s failure to comply with communal amenity requirements of sustainable housing guidelines, it is alleged. The board’s approach to this error meant there was no effective public participation on this particular, the group claims.