Company challenges permission for 300-unit Dublin residential development

Case involves permission for eight blocks of apartments, ranging from five to nine storeys and 22 houses

A company has brought High Court proceedings seeking to overturn a permission for 300 housing units in Monkstown in south Dublin.

The case by Starrs Holdings Ltd against An Bord Pleanála concerns a permission granted to Lulani Dalguise Ltd to build eight blocks of apartments, ranging from five to nine storeys, and 22 houses on a three-hectare site near Monkstown village.

The development will also see the conversion of Dalguise House into two separate dwellings and a creche.

The permission, granted by An Bord Pleanála last August, is challenged on various grounds including the impact of the development on traffic and road safety. It is also claimed it will permanently disturb protected species of bats and herons that nest in the area.


Starrs, represented by Neil Steen SC, with Niall Handy BL, instructed by Orpen Franks solicitors claims the permission is flawed on several grounds and should be set aside.

It is claimed, in an alleged breach of fair procedures the board authorised the developer and the local authority to agree significant road traffic issues concerning the development after permission was granted.

Starr also claims it has identified multiple errors and omissions in documents regarding traffic in the area submitted by the developer to the board.

The board, it is claimed, failed to have sufficient regard to the applicant’s objections and did not give adequate reasons for rejecting its arguments.

It is also alleged the board wrongly assumed there would be access from the proposed development across certain third-party lands.

The applicant said this assumption was made where there is no legal agreement in place to facilitate such access, which makes the board’s decision irrational and unreasonable.

The applicant company consists of several parties who have interests in lands, including rights of way, surrounding the proposed development.

It was further submitted that pre-construction works on the site would be in breach of the EU Habitats directive and the removal of trees and soil would disturb local bats and heron populations.

Permission to bring the challenge against the board was granted by Ms Justice Niamh Hyland. The developer is a notice party to the proceedings.

The action was also admitted to the High Court list dealing with Strategic Infrastructure Developments.

The judge put a stay on pre-construction works which might impact on trees, protected birds and bats. The developer has liberty to seek to lift that stay on notice to the applicant.