The High Court quashed Dublin City Council’s order authorising a change of use and refurbishment at the former St Nicholas of Myra Parish Centre in Carman’s Hall, Dublin 8, for homeless accommodation. The order was set aside because the Council had not followed development plan procedures requiring it to consider whether the facility could contribute to an undue concentration of homeless services or harm the area.
Mr Justice Binchy delivered the judgment on 11 October 2017 in a judicial review brought by Carman’s Hall Community Interest Group, Michael Mallin House Residents Association and Elizabeth (otherwise Liz) O’Connor. The challenge concerned the Carman’s Hall premises only, not two other sites included in the Council’s order. The facility accommodates 65 people.
The Council made the order on 28 October 2016, relying on emergency powers under section 179(6)(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The provision exempts urgent local authority development from the usual section 179 and Part VIII procedures. The judge accepted there had been a serious emergency in the supply of homeless accommodation and found the Council had ample justification for invoking those powers. He also rejected the applicants’ claim that they were entitled to consultation in the emergency process.
But the emergency exemption did not release the Council from the separate statutory duty not to carry out development that materially contravenes its development plan. The plan required proposals for temporary homeless accommodation to be supported by information on service concentration and effects on the local economy, residents and regeneration. The judge found the Council had prepared none of the required information and had not assessed whether the Carman’s Hall facility, alongside existing services, could create an undue concentration. It addressed that issue only after the judicial review began.
The judge ruled that this failure amounted to a material contravention of the development plan. He expressly made no finding on whether the facility itself would cause an undue concentration or otherwise materially breach the plan. The defect was the Council’s failure to consider and decide that planning question before making the order.
The applicants had also argued that the project was unfair because the community was not consulted, that works had begun before authorisation, and that the order lacked a definite end date. The judge rejected the consultation claim in the emergency context. The judgment concluded by saying the order must be quashed and invited submissions on the orders to follow, while noting the potential impact on people using the facility. The supplied judgment does not state the final form or timing of those consequential orders.