The High Court has refused two residents permission to pursue a judicial review challenge to planning approval for a 48-unit residential development partly within and beside the Foxrock Architectural Conservation Area.
Ms Justice Emily Farrell also refused Melissa Moore and Yseult Quinn Wall permission to substantially amend the grounds of their challenge after the statutory eight-week period for questioning the planning decision had expired.
An Bord Pleanála granted Amberfield Homes Limited permission on 26 March 2025 for a development involving the omission of a previously permitted house, demolition of two houses and construction of 48 residential units with associated works. The Board has since been replaced by An Coimisiún Pleanála.
Both applicants had participated in the planning process and appealed Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council's original decision to grant permission. They filed their High Court proceedings on 20 May 2025, the final day of the eight-week statutory period.
Their original case alleged that the development conflicted with planning policies protecting architectural heritage and neighbouring residential amenities. The court held, however, that those grounds largely amounted to disagreement with the planning merits of the decision rather than substantial legal grounds for judicial review.
Before the leave application was determined, the applicants sought to add more detailed claims alleging failures to properly interpret and apply specified provisions of the county development plan. The judge found those proposed amendments amounted to a substantially new case rather than clarification of grounds already pleaded.
The applicants accepted they could not satisfy the statutory test for extending time. Their explanation was that they had decided late in the eight-week period to bring separate proceedings, leaving insufficient time to fully formulate their case.
Ms Justice Farrell found that this was not an adequate explanation and said allowing the amendments would circumvent the statutory time limit and pleading requirements.
The application to amend the Statement of Grounds was refused, as was the application for leave to seek judicial review. The ruling does not affect separate judicial review proceedings already brought by other challengers against the same planning permission.