The High Court has refused two judicial review applications challenging An Bord Pleanála decisions to grant permission for seven apartments on the former Chester Beatty Library site at 20 Shrewsbury Road, Dublin 4.
In a judgment delivered on 14 December 2006, Mr Justice McGovern refused the relief sought by Sean Dunne and Stephen MacKenzie. The applications concerned permissions granted on 11 February 2004 and 8 September 2005. Both developments involved demolishing buildings on the site and building seven apartments; the later proposal had a somewhat different layout and included demolition of the remaining building.
The applicants argued that the Board had not adequately explained its decisions, particularly in light of Shrewsbury Road’s designation as a Residential Conservation Area. They also challenged aspects of the planning application process, including site notices, the description of demolition in the newspaper notice, drawings that omitted one applicant’s house, Part V social and affordable housing information, and a €5 shortfall in the application fee.
The judge found that the Board’s reasons addressed the development plan, the site’s conservation-area status, planning history, nearby development and effects on adjoining properties. He rejected the claim that the reasons were insufficient. He also held that the Board was not required to explain why it did not adopt an inspector’s recommended condition to omit a balcony.
On the first application’s site notice, the judge said the evidence did not allow him to determine when it was erected. He nevertheless found the applicants had sufficient notice to object and appeal, and declined to make an order on that ground. He rejected the argument that the notice needed a yellow background, and found no requirement to state in the newspaper notice that habitable houses would be demolished.
The judgment also found no prejudice arising from the omitted house on the elevation drawings, the housing arrangements or the fee discrepancy. The judge accepted the Board’s interpretation that a planning application could be made while an earlier Board decision was subject to judicial review. He concluded that any technical breaches had not prejudiced the applicants and refused certiorari in both proceedings. The judgment did not revoke either planning permission.