By Owen Reid
The High Court has dismissed a challenge by two developers to open-space zoning and housing-density provisions affecting land at Fosterstown in Swords, County Dublin.
MKN Properties Limited and J. Murphy (Developments) Limited challenged parts of the Fingal County Development Plan 2023-2029 concerning approximately 10.4 hectares they own at Fosterstown. They objected to the council changing portions of land previously zoned residential to “OS - Open Space” and to a map-based objective setting a density of 110 to 115 dwellings per hectare.
Mr Justice Humphreys rejected both challenges. He emphasised that elected councillors have broad statutory authority to make development plans and alter land-use zoning, and that courts should be slow to interfere with those democratic planning decisions unless illegality is established.
The developers argued that the zoning change conflicted with 2022 ministerial development-plan guidelines stating that serviced residential land capable of development during the new plan period should not be de-zoned. The court found that the Fosterstown change was not the kind of de-zoning contemplated by those guidelines. The wider site remained intended for housing, while the open-space zoning identified green corridors, streams, trees, hedgerows and recreational areas already reflected in the Fosterstown Masterplan.
The court also rejected the argument that Fingal had inadequately explained how it complied with ministerial guidelines. Humphreys J held that requiring councils to provide detailed site-by-site explanations of how every provision across numerous lengthy guidelines was implemented would be unworkable.
A separate challenge to the density objective also failed. The court found that the 110-115 homes-per-hectare range closely reflected the existing Fosterstown Masterplan and was slightly more favourable to the developers than its 105-115 range.
The judge also rejected claims that councillors relied on improper considerations or treated Fosterstown inconsistently with other sites.
The proceedings were dismissed. The proposed order included no order as to costs unless a party sought a different order, with the matter listed for 18 May 2026 to confirm the final position.