The High Court has quashed An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a 1,614-apartment development at the former Holy Cross College in Clonliffe, Dublin, after finding that the decision did not properly address heritage protections and planning concerns raised by Dublin City Council.
In a judgment delivered on 27 January 2023, Mr Justice Humphreys made an order of certiorari removing for the purpose of being quashed the board’s 4 November 2021 decision. The permission covered built-to-rent apartments and associated works on the former seminary site. The court did not grant planning permission for a revised scheme or determine what should happen next.
The judicial review was brought by Fionuala Sherwin. CWTC Multi Family ICAV was a notice party to the proceedings. The court’s decision followed a hearing from 15 to 17 November 2022 and a site visit the following day.
A central issue was the proposed demolition and alteration of parts of the protected seminary complex. The judge found that the board had not considered section 57(10) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which restricts permission to demolish a protected structure to exceptional circumstances. He said the board should have identified the proposed demolition, assessed which works affected protected structures and considered whether any demolition required exceptional circumstances. The court also found that the decision failed to address material contraventions of development-plan provisions on the scale and massing of new buildings within the curtilages and attendant grounds of protected structures.
The judgment separately found that the board had not adequately explained why it rejected Dublin City Council’s concerns about the Red House, a recorded monument. Those concerns included the loss of a buffer area and a major access route close to the building. The judge said the decision did not properly assess whether those impacts were the minimum necessary to secure the continued use of the protected structures.
On the proposed basement beneath the eastern end of the Formal Green, the court found that the inspector’s report did not engage with the council’s concerns about mature trees, the condition of adjoining grounds or the long-term performance of the green area above the basement. It also found an unaddressed material contravention of a development-plan provision on basement development.
The judgment rejected or did not need to determine a number of other arguments, including claims about the status of several buildings as recorded monuments and a project-splitting allegation. The order quashing the permission was based on the heritage and basement issues the court found established.