The High Court has refused Ironborn Real Estate Limited’s challenge to Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council’s refusal to extend the duration of a planning permission for the unfinished parts of Aiken’s Village in Stepaside.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2023, Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy ruled that the council had wrongly interpreted the environmental-assessment requirement in section 42(8) of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The assessment should concern the environmental effects of the development still to be carried out, together with any additional effects arising from the changed completion date. It need not automatically cover the entire development authorised by the original permission.
However, the judge upheld the council’s separate reason for refusing the extension: it was not satisfied that the development would be completed within a reasonable time. Because that reason independently required refusal, the court declined to quash the council’s decision and refused the order of certiorari sought by Ironborn.
The 2011 permission covered a mixed-use development, including 355 homes, on lands at Murphystown and Woodside. Construction began in May 2013. By the time of the extension application, 234 homes had been built, and 263 residential units remained under the original permission as amended by a 2016 permission.
Ironborn applied in December 2021 to extend the appropriate period for the parent permission by five years. It also sought a separate extension for the 243 homes permitted in Sector 3; that separate application was not before the court, and the judgment said the council had delayed deciding it pending these proceedings.
The council refused the application in September 2022 on two grounds. It considered an extension barred because the original development exceeded an environmental-impact-assessment threshold. It also said it was not satisfied the development would be completed within a reasonable time.
On the second ground, the judge rejected Ironborn’s argument that it was enough to show the development could be completed within five years. The application materials described the existing permission as a way to retain an option while other proposals for the lands remained unresolved. The judge held that the council could reasonably conclude from this evidence that Ironborn’s intention to complete the permitted development had not been established. He stressed that this was not a finding that the development would not be completed.
The court’s refusal of certiorari means the council’s refusal remained in place. The judgment stated that the proceedings would be dismissed, with no order as to costs, unless either party sought a different order within 28 days of publication.