High Court clears way for Rathfarnham apartments challenge
The High Court has cleared the way for a local group to take legal action against An Bord PleanÃ¡la’s approval of 114 apartments for rent in Rathfarnham, Dublin.
Ballyboden Tidy Towns group seeks a court order quashing authorization for the six apartment buildings proposed for a site off Stocking Lane by developer Ardstone Homes Limited, a party to the proceedings, which has been granted a building permit in September.
One of the main grounds for contestation was that the approval of the proposed construction materially contravened the development plan and the local plan with regard to zoning.
The group, represented by FP Logue Solicitors, is also seeking a number of statements from the court, including that two sections of the Irish Habitat Protection Regulations are invalid due to what they claim to be an incorrect transposition of an article a European Union regulation. directive.
Judge Richard Humphreys has cleared the group to bring a judicial review action against the board of directors for its expedited approval of the development as a strategic infrastructure development.
The Attorney General and South Dublin County Council are also respondents in the case.
It is claimed that the zoning objective of the land is ânew residential communities in accordance with approved area plansâ. The development materially contravenes the local level with regard to the composition of housing, the phasing strategy and density, says the group.
In addition, the applicant claims that the distance between one block of the proposed development and houses in another estate is less than the 35m required by the county development plan.
The authorization is also invalidated, the group claims, because the developer failed to accurately complete an application in accordance with regulatory requirements.
In addition, it is alleged that the council did not adequately or at all take into account the cumulative effects of the proposed development on the environment, as stated in the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The approval is also invalidated by the development’s failure to comply with the municipal approval requirements of the sustainable housing guidelines, it is alleged. The board’s approach to this error meant that there had been no effective public participation on this particular point, the group claims.