The High Court has dismissed a judicial review challenge to planning permission for 232 homes and associated works at the former Carmelite monastery in Delgany, County Wicklow. A separate challenge to a bat derogation licence remains unresolved, with the court inviting further written submissions before deciding how it should proceed.
An Bord Pleanála granted permission to Drumakilla Limited on 15 February 2021. Ten applicants challenged the permission and the licence issued by the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The High Court granted leave for the judicial review and a stay on the works in April 2021. The hearing took place in May 2023.
The applicants argued, among other matters, that the board had not adequately explained its assessment of traffic, that the permission contravened zoning and apartment policies, and that the statutory planning framework was incompatible with EU environmental law. The judge rejected those grounds. He found that the board gave sufficient main reasons on traffic, including its view that impacts could be mitigated, and that the plan’s use of “generally” allowed the apartments in this particular scheme because of its site-specific features and proposed public realm and community facilities.
The court also held that a density limit was not, in this case, a zoning provision for the purposes of the relevant statutory restriction. It rejected the applicants’ challenge to the statutory framework and found that their attempt to advance an additional EU-law argument about bats was not adequately pleaded. Two other grounds were not pursued.
The licence challenge was treated separately from the planning permission challenge. The judgment records that the applicants did not apply for an extension of time, despite the licence having been included in the planning application documents. The judge outlined the issues the applicants would need to address, including whether EU law affected the timing requirements and whether the licence properly dealt with alternatives and protection for bats. He did not finally decide those issues, instead inviting further submissions and leaving open whether a question should be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The court ordered that the challenge to the board’s permission be dismissed. It continued the stay on works until further order, with liberty to apply, and listed the case for a further mention on a date to be notified. There was no order for costs on the planning challenge; costs of the licence challenge were reserved, subject to submissions within seven days.