An Bord Pleanála has conceded in a challenge to its grant of permission for the construction of 179 homes in Co Wicklow.
The High Court was informed on Monday that the board will not contest the application brought by Shane Stokes and Damien O’Brien, seeking to quash the approval given to Dublin building firm Dwyer Nolan for 121 houses and 58 apartments at Newtownmountkennedy.
The board accepted it referred to a local area plan that had expired by the time the planning permission was granted, the court heard.
Mr Stokes, a journalist who writes about cycling, and Mr O’Brien, a system administrator, brought a case asking the court to quash the approval given to Dublin building firm Dwyer Nolan for 121 houses and 58 apartments. They have separate addresses at Season Park in Newtownmountkennedy, Co Wicklow.
File being prepared for DPP over insider trading
Christmas tech for kids: great gift ideas with safety features for parental peace of mind
MenoPal app offers proactive support to women going through menopause
Ezviz RE4 Plus review: Efficient budget robot cleaner but can suffer from wanderlust under the wrong conditions
The permission came last August under the now-defunct Strategic Housing Development (SHD) scheme, which involved developers bypassing local authorities to seek fast-track permission directly from An Bord Pleanála.
An Bord Pleanála’s counsel, Aoife Carroll, said it was the board’s provisional view that remitting the application for fresh consideration would not occur.
Niall Handy, counsel for Dwyer Nolan, a notice party in the case, said his client might seek to step in to defend the permission in lieu of the board. Any application would be likely delayed as the Supreme Court is due to determine the circumstances in which it is appropriate for notice party developers to defend approvals the board no longer stands over.
The applicants’ barrister John Kenny, instructed by FP Logue solicitor Eoin Brady, said he could not see how the developer would secure leave to defend the case, given the ground on which the board had conceded.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys adjourned the case to October.
In a pre-permission submission to the board, Wicklow Count Council had recommended refusing the plans. It found the development would endanger public safety by way of serious traffic hazard as it would not adequately cater for the safe movement of pedestrians and cyclists. It also submitted that the lands are remote from the town centre core, with no existing pedestrian or cycle connections.
However, the appeals board inspector recommended that permission be granted after concluding that “the proposed density is not contrary to national planning policy and therefore is acceptable in principle”.
The inspector found that the proposed scheme does incorporate safe access for vehicle, pedestrian and cycle movements.
