RTÉ AND the Sisters of Charity have brought separate High Court challenges to decisions by Dublin City Council imposing conditions affecting the potential development of their lands.
RTÉ claims the decisions will have a serious impact on redevelopment plans for the Montrose complex at Donnybrook, Dublin, while the Sisters of Charity claim 18 parcels of its lands around Dublin, 108 acres, will be affected.
Mr Justice Michael Peart yesterday gave leave to both to bring judicial review proceedings against the council arising from zoning changes for the lands included in its city development plan 2011-17.
Regarding the RTÉ property, the court heard all the lands had been zoned Z15 in the new plan, a designation imposing more restrictions on development than included in the previous plan.
It means future uses such as housing development are not open for planning consideration, which has implications for the ability of the nuns and RTÉ to sell off land to fund their activities.
Nuala Butler SC, for the broadcaster, said the new zoning did not allow even for media-associated uses to be considered. She said the station had engaged fully in the development plan process and had in fact got a less restrictive Z12 zoning in the amended draft plan put on public display between August 18th and November 15th.
However, when the plan came back before the council on November 23rd, councillors had passed two resolutions reverting the zoning to Z15.
The Sisters of Charity claim the development plan is substantively illegal in that it applies a restrictive zoning to an arbitrary selection of lands including St Vincent’s Private Hospital; St Mary’s daycare centre, Donnybrook; the hospice at Harold’s Cross; and a number of school sites across the city.
The nuns want orders quashing the adoption of the zoning on their lands and a stay on the operation of the section affecting their property. They are also seeking damages for alleged breaches of their private property and religious freedom rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Brian Murray SC, for the order, said extensive legal submissions were put to the council during the development plan process, making the same complaints as in the High Court proceedings. No reason was given as to why the submissions were rejected.
This action was “terribly important” for his clients because they had to sell lands from time to time to generate income to fund their charitable work, Mr Murray added.