The High Court has refused a judicial review challenging Dublin City Council’s decision to convert Longfield House at 9 and 10 Fitzwilliam Street Lower into supported temporary accommodation for homeless people.
In a judgment delivered on 18 January 2017, Ms Justice Baker rejected the application by Kenny Byrnes, who lives with his family at a nearby protected Georgian house. The Council’s decision of 2 February 2015 authorised refurbishment and a change of use to accommodation for single people and couples, with 30 bed spaces. Dublin Simon Community was to operate the service, replacing its emergency accommodation facility on Harcourt Street.
The judge first rejected the Council’s argument that the case was out of time. She found that the application for leave had been made on 27 March 2015, within the statutory eight-week period, and that its further consideration had been adjourned to April because of the court list and legal term.
Byrnes argued that the proposed use and building works materially contravened the Dublin City Development Plan; that public notices did not adequately describe the proposal; that Fáilte Ireland should have been notified; that the Council manager’s report to elected members was inadequate; and that the Council could not use the Part VIII procedure because Dublin Simon would operate the hostel.
On the proposed services, the judge accepted Council evidence that Longfield House would not be a methadone treatment or needle-exchange centre. Methadone prescriptions and dispensing would take place elsewhere. She concluded that the supported accommodation and associated services were contemplated by the Development Plan and that no material contravention had been established. She also found insufficient evidence that the refurbishment would materially affect the protected buildings’ character.
The judge held that the public notices adequately described the supported accommodation and the refurbishment works. Although the Council accepted that it had not notified Fáilte Ireland, she found no adequate evidence that notification was required and considered any error minimal.
The manager’s report did not adequately articulate the Chief Executive’s response to submissions, the judge said. But, taking the report and process as a whole, she found it sufficient for elected members to make their decision; any shortcomings did not justify quashing the approval. She also found that the Part VIII procedure applied because the Council owned the premises, would fund the refurbishment and intended Dublin Simon to provide the service on its behalf under a contract to be made after the works.
The court refused the judicial review. It did not quash the Council’s decision.