The High Court has refused Bartra Property (Dublin) Limited’s challenge to a Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council development plan change that removed residential use from consideration at Bullock Harbour.
In a judgment delivered on 4 September 2024, Mr Justice Barry O’Donnell found that the elected councillors had given planning reasons for the change and that the company had not established its grounds for judicial review. The court said its role was to assess the decision-making process, not the merits of the council’s planning choice.
The amendment, made as part of the County Development Plan 2022–2028, marked residential and residential institution uses as not permitted in principle or open for consideration in Bullock Harbour. The council’s Chief Executive had recommended omitting the amendment and assessing proposed uses, including flood risk, through individual planning applications. The elected members chose a different approach.
Bartra argued that the council had not given adequate reasons, failed to consider relevant material, relied on irrelevant considerations and singled out its lands. It also relied on an economic report submitted during the plan process, which said that non-residential development was unlikely to provide a return without associated residential development.
The judge found that the reasons were sufficiently clear from the amendment process, including councillor discussions and the council’s records. The stated concerns included flood risk and wave overtopping, the suitability of the site for housing, and protection of the area’s heritage and recreational amenity. The court found the reasons were planning-based and that the elected members were entitled to depart from the Chief Executive’s recommendation.
The judgment also rejected the claims that councillors had failed to consider Bartra’s submissions or had acted from personal animus or a discriminatory motive. The court said references to the history of planning disputes were not central to the decision. It noted that other uses, including assisted living accommodation, remained open for consideration; any future application for such use would have to be assessed on its own terms.
The court refused the judicial review application. It did not make a final costs order in this judgment. The matter was listed for final orders, including costs, on 17 October 2024; the judge’s provisional view was that the council should receive its costs if the parties did not establish a different outcome.