By Clara Finn
The High Court has refused An Bord Pleanála permission to appeal a ruling which quashed approval for 131 apartments at Redcourt on Seafield Road East in Clontarf, Dublin 3.
Mr Justice David Holland had quashed the Board's December 2021 strategic housing development permission in February 2024 on two independent grounds.
First, he found that the scheme materially contravened the Dublin development plan because it did not provide the required amount of communal open space. The proposed central courtyard was covered by a roof and the Board had not used the statutory procedure required to grant permission despite a material contravention.
Second, the judge found that the Board had failed to consider whether it should obtain correspondence from Dublin Bus which developer Savona Ltd had relied upon in arguing that the number 130 bus service had sufficient peak-hour capacity. When that correspondence emerged during the court proceedings, Holland J found it related to bus capacity in directions opposite to those most relevant to residents of the proposed development.
The Board sought certification of ten proposed questions for an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Under planning law, such an appeal requires the High Court to certify a point of law of exceptional public importance and to find that an appeal is desirable in the public interest.
Holland J rejected all ten questions. He found several did not accurately reflect what his earlier judgment had decided, while others concerned the application of settled legal principles to the unusual facts of this particular development.
He also noted that the strategic housing development regime involved had been repealed and that no evidence was provided showing the disputed issues were likely to recur widely.
The refusal means the 2024 order quashing the permission remains in place. The ruling did not decide whether a revised development should ultimately receive planning permission if brought back through the planning process.
The judge provisionally considered that Martin Stapleton should receive his costs of the certification application from the Board, with Savona bearing its own costs, but left that issue for further argument.