Resident groups challenge permission for Phibsborough apartments
Two groups of residents have sued the High Court to quash authorization for a development of 205 apartments for rent in blocks ranging from three to 12 storeys on a site in Phibsborough, Dublin.
The groups, representing residents of Leinster Street North and Shandon Park, say they are not opposed to the development of the Old Bakery site on Phibsborough Road near the Cross Guns Bridge, but say the proposal represents “significant over-development” of the site.
Judge Richard Humphreys on Monday granted leave to John Kenny, appointed by Eoin Brady of FP Logue Solicitors, for the plaintiffs, to challenge the judicial review.
He granted a stay of all work, with the freedom to ask the respondents to change or delete that. In requesting the stay, Mr Kenny said there were significant issues with the Habitats Directive and his clients fear that if there is no stay that old industrial buildings on the site could be demolished.
In their action against An Bord Pleanála, with developer Bindford Ltd part of the notification, the Leinster Street North Residents Association and Shandon Residents Association say their members are directly and significantly affected by the proposed development.
They put forward 11 grounds for contestation, including the fact that the Development Board’s strategic housing development authorization was granted in violation of the sunlight / daylight requirements in the Urban Building Guidelines. and new apartments.
It is alleged that the council incorrectly accepted the developer’s analysis as to the nature of the natural lighting applicable to the kitchenettes in the apartments. The claimants claim that the 2 percent higher Average Daylight Factor (ADF) standard for kitchens should have been applied, and not the 1.5 percent figure that was applied.
Other reasons concerning the provision of bicycle parking. The development provides for 272 underground parking spaces for residents and 72 for visitors.
The applicants say the applicable guidelines should be interpreted as requiring one space per bedroom rather than per living unit, and that a total of 373 spaces should have been provided.
They also claim that the board failed to assess whether there was adequate public transport capacity before granting the clearance and that this was in substantial breach of the Dublin City County Council development plan.
A council inspector noted that the height of the proposed development significantly exceeds the existing structures on the site and also exceeds the height of 19m recommended for this area and could constitute a significant contravention of the plan, according to the applicants. A developer proposing a development that is in material breach should describe how the site is well served by public transport but has not performed the necessary assessment, it is claimed.
Other claims indicate that council was not entitled to conclude that the issue of noise abatement could be addressed by a condition recommending noise abatement measures to be agreed with the planning authority.
It is also claimed that some of the planning application documents are inaccurate and that the drawings submitted do not accurately reflect the distances between existing buildings on the site and the site boundaries and adjacent residential properties. The board has not addressed this issue, it is claimed.
Additional grounds include claims that the authorization is invalid as it involves a significant incursion into the Royal Canal area containing an otter population.
It is also alleged that the Management Board failed to apply the correct legal test under the Habitats Directive with regard to the assessment of the impact on the fauna of bats and otters entitled under strict protection and failed to meet public participation requirements in the way it reviewed developer submissions regarding bats.