The High Court has granted a Howth resident leave to bring judicial review proceedings against An Bord Pleanála’s permission for a 177-home development, while refusing leave on several grounds he raised.
In a judgment delivered on 8 June 2020, Ms Justice Denis McDonald said Christian Morris had shown sufficient interest as a local resident who had submitted observations on the proposal. The decision under challenge was the Board’s 2 March 2020 approval of a strategic housing development at the former Baily Court Hotel on Main Street and adjoining lands south of the Martello Tower on Balscadden Road, Howth.
The approved scheme comprises 171 apartments and six duplexes in three apartment blocks and a mews building, between two and five storeys high. The judgment records that demolition of existing buildings, including the former hotel and a disused sports building, was part of the proposal.
The court granted leave to challenge whether the Board adequately addressed detailed submissions about safety, subsidence and landslide risks, excavations and their health and environmental effects. Those submissions came from the Howth/Sutton Community Council and the Balscadden Road SAA Residents Association. The judge also granted leave on whether the Board properly considered Fingal County Council’s Objective DMS 174 on coastal erosion, and whether the development complied with the site’s zoning and qualified as a strategic housing development under the relevant legislation.
A separate ground concerns the planning inspector’s report, which did not refer to Morris or his observations. The judge said the omission could amount to an error sufficient to invalidate the Board’s decision, but stressed that this was only a preliminary assessment and that the Board might have a complete answer. Leave was also granted to challenge Condition 2, which removed a proposed footpath widening while giving pedestrian protection as its reason. The judge said the condition’s stated rationale was difficult to understand on its face, without deciding whether the Board could justify it.
The court refused leave on the claim that the Board should have considered a constitutional challenge to the planning legislation, finding no arguable basis for that ground. It also refused leave on the flooding claim, saying the material raised it too generally, and on several other claims the judge found unsupported by substantial grounds.
This was a decision on whether the proposed challenges could proceed, not a final ruling on the lawfulness of the planning permission. The court directed that the case proceed by originating notice of motion, set service requirements and a return date of 25 June 2020, and reserved the costs of the leave application.