The High Court rejected a judicial review challenge to An Bord Pleanála’s refusal of planning permission for a development that would have replaced a car park used by St. Michael’s Hospital in Dún Laoghaire. Mr Justice Charleton held that the Board could take the existing parking use into account when assessing the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
The applicant, Wexele, sought to build 80 apartments and two retail units on the Crofton Road site, with a two-level ground and basement car park providing 124 spaces. The plans allocated 44 spaces to a separate nurses’ residence development at Eblana Avenue. The judgment said up to 110 cars had been observed at the existing site, which had 90 formally laid-out spaces and was used by hospital staff and visiting patients.
Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council refused permission in September 2007. On appeal, An Bord Pleanála refused it on 14 July 2008. The Board gave three reasons, including concerns about visual amenity, design and the relationship with neighbouring properties. The judicial review challenged only the reason concerning the loss of the car park and the resulting parking provision, traffic congestion and effects on local amenities.
Wexele argued that the hospital’s use of the car park was free and could be ended, and that the Board had relied on an irrelevant consideration. It also complained that it had not been given a chance to respond to submissions sent to public bodies during the appeal. The judgment records that the hospital was not a party to the appeal and that the applicant said it had offered replacement spaces and offered to sell the car park to the hospital; the hospital declined the offer, according to the applicant’s account.
On fair procedures, the judge found that the material points in the later submissions had already appeared in the planning file, inspector’s report or other material available to the applicant. The residents’ submissions did not raise a new point about closure of the hospital car park. The court concluded that no new, significant point had been introduced without notice and that the applicant had an adequate opportunity to make relevant arguments.
On parking, the court held that the site’s previous and existing use was relevant to planning, regardless of ownership or whether the hospital had a legal entitlement to continue using it. The court concluded that the Board’s decision on parking rested on relevant planning considerations and that there had been no breach of fair procedures. The judgment records the challenge and the court’s conclusions; it does not set out a separate formal order in the supplied text. The two other refusal reasons were not challenged in the judicial review.