Resident challenges permission for 152 residential units on Crumlin site

Planning board approves strategic housing development

A resident has taken a High Court challenge aimed at overturning planning permission for a development of 152 residential units in Crumlin.

A resident has taken a High Court challenge aimed at overturning planning permission for a development of 152 residential units in Crumlin.

 

A Crumlin resident has taken a High Court challenge aimed at overturning planning permission for a development of 152 residential units in the area.

The action by Paul Brady, of Somerville Drive, Crumlin, Dublin 12, concerns An Bord Pleanála’s approval, dated May 13th last and subject to 28 conditions, for a strategic housing development at the site of Glebe House, St Agnes’ Road, Crumlin.

John Kenny, instructed by FP Logue Solicitors, for Mr Brady, secured leave on Monday from Mr Justice Richard Humphreys to bring the judicial review proceedings against the board.

The developer, Seabren Developments Ltd and Circle VHA CLG, are notice parties.

Grounds

The judge granted a stay restraining works under the permission, subject to liberty to apply, and returned the matter to later this month.

Mr Brady claims he is directly impacted by the proposed development. He says he is not opposed to development on the site but claims what is proposed amounts to significant overdevelopment of the local area and will have a “significant deleterious impact” on him.

The grounds of challenge include claims the permission is invalid in that it contravenes the sunlight/daylight requirements of the 2018 urban development and building height guidelines and the 2018 sustainable urban housing guidelines for new apartments, as provided for in BER guidelines.

It is claimed, inter alia, the sunlight/daylight requirements were breached because the living rooms in the proposed developments form part of the kitchens and thus, it is alleged, require a higher average daylight factor (ADF) of 2 per cent rather than the ADF of 1.5 per cent provided for in relation to some of the apartments.

It is further argued the permission contravenes bicycle provision requirements of the apartments guidelines, including by allegedly failing to include any adequate detail concerning where visitor bicycle provision will be situated.

A board inspector erred in considering that provision for 1.8 bicycle spaces per residential unit, including visitor spaces, was acceptable for the development and appropriate given the level of car parking proposed, it is claimed.

If the relevant guidelines were applied, 233 bicycle spaces for residents should have been provided, it is claimed.

Parking

The developer’s statement of consistency identifies 200 cycle parking spaces will be contained in the underground car park and 74 visitor cycle parking units will be accommodated in publicly accessible areas but there are no details where the visitor units will be located, it is claimed.

It is further claimed there is a “minimal” level of proposed car parking of 0.36 of a car per residential unit, with the effect there is under provision of both car parking and residential bicycle parking spaces

Other grounds include alleged failure to assess whether there was adequate public transport capacity prior to granting permission.

It is further argued the permission is invalid as contrary to the Dublin City Council County Development Plan 2016-22 because of lack of provision for a childcare facility.

Among various claims of breaches of European law, it is claimed the permission decision contravenes the Habitats Directive and the EC (Birds and Natural Habitats) Regulations 2011 in failing to provide the requisite degree of protection for bat fauna on the site.