Supreme Court Rejects Developer’s Appeal for 1,593 Rental Apartments in Dublin
In a recent development, the Supreme Court has ruled against a developer’s attempt to retain planning permission for a significant project comprising 1,593 rental apartments in north Dublin. The decision sheds light on the complexities surrounding planning processes and the considerations for development projects in urban areas.
A developer associated with Hines sought to uphold planning permission for a €602 million scheme encompassing 12 blocks, including a towering 18-storey structure, on the grounds of the former Holy Cross seminary in Drumcondra, north Dublin. However, the Supreme Court’s recent verdict overturned the fast-track approval granted in November 2021, following a legal challenge by Fionnuala Sherwin, a resident of Knocksinna Grove, Foxrock, Co Dublin.
The High Court’s initial decision to invalidate the approval, which was granted under an obsolete fast-track mechanism, was affirmed by the Supreme Court. This verdict stemmed from concerns raised by Ms. Sherwin regarding the potential impact of the proposed development on the surrounding protected structures.
Dublin City Council’s conservation officer expressed reservations about the scale and visual impact of the 18-storey block within the site’s context, highlighting its potential to overshadow and detract from the architectural significance of neighbouring protected buildings, namely the former seminary and the 18th-century Fortick’s Alms House.
The Supreme Court, led by Mr. Justice Séamus Woulfe, emphasized the inadequacy of the assessment conducted by An Bord Pleanála’s inspector, particularly in evaluating the compatibility of the proposed tower with the area’s protected structures. It was underscored that the inspector’s report did not sufficiently consider the local development plan’s provisions regarding protected structures and basement development.
Moreover, the court criticised the lack of comprehensive reasoning provided by the board for its decision, pointing out discrepancies in addressing concerns raised by relevant authorities regarding the project’s impact on the local environment and heritage. The ruling by Mr. Justice Woulfe highlighted the necessity for thorough consideration of policy guidelines in planning decisions to ensure alignment with broader developmental objectives.
The contentious nature of the build-to-rent development, which garnered significant public attention and opposition, further underscores the challenges associated with balancing housing needs with heritage preservation and urban development goals. Notably, objections from various stakeholders, including political figures like Mary Lou McDonald, underscored the project’s potential implications on the housing crisis in Dublin.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the developer’s appeal signifies a pivotal moment in the ongoing discourse surrounding planning permission, construction projects, and heritage conservation in Ireland. It underscores the importance of robust evaluation processes and adherence to policy frameworks to safeguard the integrity of urban landscapes and historical structures.
