The High Court has directed Balbriggan Community Council to file evidence explaining its standing in a challenge to planning permission for 101 build-to-rent apartments in Balbriggan, County Dublin. The court did not decide whether the council has standing or whether leave for its judicial review should be set aside.
In a judgment delivered on 1 July 2022, Mr Justice Humphreys said the council should respond to a motion by Rhonellen Developments Limited, the notice party developer, seeking to set aside the leave granted for the case. The judge also set a timetable for further affidavits and written submissions, with the question of additional costs protection to be revisited before a hearing date is fixed for the developer’s motion.
An Bord Pleanála granted permission for the apartments in November 2021. The council’s judicial review seeks to quash that decision. The court granted leave on 7 February 2022, and the council filed its originating notice of motion three days later. The developer filed its motion concerning leave on 16 March.
The council later sought declarations on costs protection under planning and environmental legislation and the Aarhus-related obligations described in the judgment. The developer had assured the council there would be no order for costs against it in the High Court if the motion to set aside leave succeeded. It said protection for a possible appeal or preliminary reference was premature.
The judge said the council was not yet in costs jeopardy while the developer’s motion remained at the written stage. He directed the council to file an affidavit answering the developer’s standing motion, and said the developer could reply. Both sides are then to file submissions addressing the motion’s merits and whether further costs protection should apply if a hearing is to be fixed.
The judgment criticised the council’s affidavits for not setting out its position against the statutory standing criteria in a sufficiently detailed way. It noted unanswered questions raised by the developer, including the council’s constitution and how the decision to bring proceedings was made. The judge did not determine that all the information sought was legally required, nor did he decide the standing issue.
The ordered filing periods were two weeks for each step, excluding August. The matter was to return for mention on 3 October 2022, before any hearing date was set for the developer’s motion. Unless a party notified the registrar within two weeks that it intended to argue otherwise, there would be no order for the costs of the preliminary hearing and related written submissions.