The High Court has dismissed a judicial review brought by North Great George’s Street Preservation Society against An Bord Pleanála’s permissions for a shared accommodation development at 39–42 Hill Street and 36a North Great George’s Street, Dublin 1.
Humphreys J delivered judgment on 15 May 2023. The case challenged two board decisions: a 2020 permission for a scheme with 132 bed spaces and a 2021 permission for an amended scheme with 150. The court dismissed the action and directed that the order be perfected with no order as to costs, unless a written application to the contrary was lodged within seven days.
The Society argued that the archway and laneway at 36a were part of, or within the curtilage of, protected structure No. 36. The court found the specific argument had not been put clearly to the board during the planning process, and that the materials before it did not trigger an autonomous duty to consider whether the archway itself was protected. The judge also considered the evidence about the archway’s age. On the balance of probabilities, he found the present archway was likely a later reconstruction, using mainly salvaged 19th-century bricks, though he did not rule out some earlier brickwork.
The court found the laneway had originally been part of No. 36’s curtilage, but was no longer part of it by the time the house was first listed in 1971. It also rejected the argument that the archway was part of No. 36 itself. The judgment said the finding that the archway and other features in the laneway were not protected structures would not affect the validity of the permissions. The Society could bring the matter to the city council’s attention for consideration of whether to extend the record of protected structures.
The challenge also concerned conditions requiring kitchen hobs and single occupancy. The court rejected the claim that the hob requirement transformed the proposal into a different kind of development or breached public participation requirements. It found the board’s reasons for the condition sufficient. It also rejected the claim that the single-occupancy condition was too vague or unenforceable, noting that the planning documents allowed guests on specified terms. The court did not determine hypothetical privacy or discrimination claims that might be brought by an affected resident.