Group initiates High Court challenge over permission for 208 apartments in Kimmage

A residents’ group has initiated High Court proceedings aiming to quash planning permission for a €106 million apartment scheme in Kimmage, Dublin 12.

The Kimmage Dublin Residents Alliance says An Bord Pleanála’s fast-track approval for the 208-unit, six-storey development was invalid.

More than 75 objections were lodged, including from local TDs and councillors, against the proposals by Lioncor Developments subsidiary 1 Terenure Land Ltd for the five blocks on an L-shaped site next to a large gym.

The project comprises 104 one-bed apartments and 104 two-bed apartments, with 21 to be sold to Dublin City Council for social housing.

How to organise a work day out that doesn’t induce groans among staff

---

Family affairs: How Ireland’s newly rich are putting money to work in secretive firms

---

Fujifilm Instax Mini 99: The most creative and best instant film camera in the line to date

---

Irish team develops therapy for deadly sepsis crisis

---

The residents’ group says the board’s approval, decided in September, is invalid as An Bord Pleanála allegedly failed to provide reasons for departing from its inspector’s recommendation that the proposed development would materially contravene the local development plan.

Also among the grounds of challenge is a claim the decision contravenes sunlight/daylight requirements for urban developments and that the proposed development contravenes the development plan in relation to density.

A number of environmental grounds are pleaded, including that the board should not have concluded that likely significant effects on the environment could be excluded at screening stage, when the proposed development is located partially in a flood zone.

The alliance also wants the High Court to put a halt to works being carried out until its judicial review proceedings have been resolved.

The residents’ group, represented by barrister John Kenny and FP Logue Solicitors, is looking for the court’s permission to pursue their challenge.

Only the plaintiff was represented before the court when Mr Justice Richard Humphreys allowed it to make some technical amendments to its legal papers. He adjourned the application seek leave of the court to bring the case.