High Court challenges allowed against two subdivisions
The High Court has cleared the advancement of two separate legal challenges brought by environmentalists over Strategic Infrastructure Developments (SIDs) in Dublin and Waterford.
Environmental activist John Conway, of St Nicholas Avenue, Dundalk, part of the Louth Environmental Group, seeks to revoke An Bord PleanÃ¡la’s fast-track authorization for 413 apartments off Hole in the Wall Road in north Dublin , Donaghmede.
Mr Conway, represented by Stephen Dodd SC appointed by BKC Solicitors, is bringing his case against An Bord PleanÃ¡la, the Attorney General of Ireland and the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Developer Belwall Limited is a notification party.
Among its main grounds for contestation is the allegation that a section of the Planning and Development Act 2000 authorizing the Minister of Housing to formulate specific planning policy requirements (SPPR) to which the planning authority and An Bord PleanÃ¡la must comply is contrary to certain articles of the law. the Constitution. It is claimed that this capacity constitutes an unauthorized delegation of legislative power and / or interference with the role of local government.
The authorization of the development council is invalid, due to its alleged reliance on the SPPRs established under section 28 of the 2000 law, according to the applicant.
In unrelated action, skilled environmentalist Lisa Dolan and civil engineer Neil Renton, both of Abbeyside, Dungarvan, Co Waterford, ask court to overturn October board permission for 218 residential units in their local city.
In court documents, Ms Dolan notes that the chief executive of Waterford City & County Council recommended that the proposed development of Duckspool be refused over concerns about its potential impact on flood risk management, among other reasons.
The applicants, represented by Stephen Dodd SC commissioned by BKC Solicitors, claim that the authorization of the board of directors contravenes an article of the Habitats Directive, as an appropriate legally required assessment would not have taken into account the scientific opinion of relevant experts, in particular Ms. Dolan’s ecological report.
An Bord PleanÃ¡la also failed to draw conclusions that dispel any reasonable scientific doubt as to the effects of the proposed construction on the conservation objectives of protected sites, including the Dungarvan Port Special Protection Area, claim they.
Ms Dolan and Mr Renton also claim that the developer’s environmental impact assessment did not consider the entire project, including the potential effects resulting from the extraction and filling of the topsoil and the resulting potential impact. the development of appropriate foundations.
Their case is against the board, while developer Michael Ryan is a notification party in the proceedings.
Judge Richard Humphreys on Monday allowed the two challenges to go to the High Court.