The Court of Appeal has refused to extend a stay on preparatory works for a planned 698-unit student accommodation development at Our Lady’s Grove, Goatstown, Dublin 14. Colbeam Limited may carry out the works allowed by an earlier High Court judgment once it has agreed all pre-commencement conditions with the planning authority. The appeal against that judgment has not yet been decided.
The motion before the Court of Appeal concerned whether a temporary stay should remain in place while Wendy Jennings and Adrian O’Connor appeal the High Court’s decision to partially lift an earlier stay on the planning permission. The permission, granted by An Bord Pleanála in June 2021, is itself under challenge in separate judicial review proceedings.
The applicants argued that allowing tree felling and other preparatory works could make three of their judicial review grounds moot and cause serious environmental harm, including harm to bats. They also said Colbeam had acted prematurely, before the High Court order was perfected and before all pre-commencement conditions had been agreed.
The Court of Appeal found the appeal grounds arguable and bona fide. But it concluded the evidence did not establish that refusing a stay would cause serious and irreparable environmental harm. It relied on the proposed replanting and measures to protect any bats found in trees being removed. The court also declined to revisit matters the High Court had already considered when it partially lifted the stay, saying it should be slow to interfere with that discretionary decision.
The judgment addressed the earlier site work separately. The High Court had found that Colbeam started tree felling before the conditions were agreed and described any further work in those circumstances as unauthorised development. The Court of Appeal condemned that premature action, but held that it did not justify keeping the stay in force once the conditions were agreed. It said the balance would then favour allowing the limited works pending the appeal.
The court therefore refused the application to extend the temporary stay, which lapsed. It did not decide the appeal against the High Court judgment or the underlying challenge to planning permission. It also declined to determine the applicants’ request for costs protection, which remained before the High Court.