The High Court has ruled that An Bord Pleanála lacked jurisdiction to grant permission for a 741-apartment development beside Connolly Station, finding that a planned car park for CIÉ took the scheme beyond the statutory limits for strategic housing development.
Mr Justice Denis McDonald delivered the judgment on 19 November 2020 in a judicial review brought by Dublin Cycling Campaign CLG. The court found the proposed development did not meet the definition in the Planning and Development (Housing) and Residential Tenancies Act 2016 because the car park counted as a non-residential use and pushed the scheme’s non-residential floor space above the 4,500-square-metre cap.
The development, proposed by Oxley Holdings Limited, included 741 apartments, retail space and related works on lands behind Connolly Station and beside Sheriff Street Lower, Dublin 1. Block B was designed to extend over railway sidings on a support deck. Plans showed the deck arranged for 135 CIÉ parking spaces, with ramps providing vehicle access.
Oxley and the Board argued that permission had been sought only for the construction of the deck, not its use as a car park. They said the parking was an existing use and did not count towards the statutory limit. The judge concluded that, although the Board’s order did not itself purport to grant permission for car park use, the application materials showed that the deck was intended to be used for parking and that this use formed part of the proposed housing development.
The court found that the car park’s floor area, combined with 3,142 square metres of other non-residential uses, exceeded the statutory maximum. It held the inspector’s conclusion that the development qualified as strategic housing development was wrong in law. The Board’s permission was therefore ultra vires and had to be quashed.
The court rejected the campaign’s other complaints about the application notices and the Board’s reasons. It also considered the challenge to the Board’s screening decision on effects on Natura 2000 sites in Dublin Bay. The judge concluded the campaign had not established a failure to screen the project in accordance with the best scientific information available or another breach of the applicable requirements. He said it was strictly unnecessary to decide that issue after finding the application invalid, but set out his conclusions because it had been fully argued.
The court did not set out the final form of the order or decide costs in this judgment. It directed the parties to try to agree the order, including any consequential matters, within 14 days of electronic delivery. If they could not agree by 3 December 2020, the applicant’s solicitor was to notify the registrar so the court could give further directions.