The High Court has joined Wendy Jennings and Adrian O’Connor as notice parties in Colbeam Limited’s challenge to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council’s rezoning of land at Our Lady’s Grove, Goatstown Road, Dublin 14.
Mr Justice David Holland ruled on 31 July 2023 that the two applicants were directly affected by the outcome of the judicial review. He directed the parties to agree early deadlines for the new notice parties’ opposition papers and any replies, and expected that process to be completed by 22 September unless the parties agreed otherwise. The case was listed for mention on that date.
Colbeam’s judicial review seeks to quash the council’s decision to zone its 2.12-hectare site for open space in the 2022 development plan. The site had been zoned for residential development under the previous plan. The judgment records that the change would substantially diminish Colbeam’s prospects of securing planning permission.
The dispute is linked to a separate judicial review brought by Jennings and O’Connor against An Bord Pleanála’s 2021 permission for student accommodation on the site. In February 2023, the High Court decided to quash that permission. Justice Holland stressed that final orders had not yet been made and certiorari had not issued; whether the permission would be remitted to the Board, and on what terms, remained unresolved.
The parties agreed that if the 2022 plan’s open-space zoning applied on remittal, the Board would have to refuse permission. If the rezoning were quashed, or the earlier development plan applied, the Board could potentially consider granting permission. The legal position on which plan applies on remittal was also affected by an appeal in the separate Crofton case, which remained pending.
Colbeam and the council opposed Jennings and O’Connor joining the rezoning case. Justice Holland said the governing test was whether the outcome would directly affect them. He distinguished their position from that of residents who had only objected to a planning application: Jennings and O’Connor had brought the separate challenge that resulted in the decision to quash the permission. If the rezoning survived, the judge said, the permission could not lead to a new permission on remittal, whether remittal was refused as futile or the Board was required to refuse.
The ruling concerns participation in the rezoning judicial review only. It did not decide whether the council’s rezoning was lawful, whether the separate permission would ultimately be remitted, or whether any new planning permission would be granted. The court also did not decide Jennings and O’Connor’s request for costs protection; Justice Holland said that issue was not before him in this judgment.