The High Court has quashed An Coimisiún Pleanála’s (ACP) decision to grant planning permission for a 422-unit build-to-rent housing development in South Dublin.
Mr Justice David Holland’s decision represents Fernleigh Residents’ Association’s second successful legal challenge to leave granted to Ironborn Real Estate Ltd for the development at Aiken’s Village, Stepaside.
In a judgment published this week, the judge found that ACP failed to acknowledge that Ironborn Real Estate’s proposed development was in contravention of the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Development Plan 2022-2028.
The contravention, as was argued by Fernleigh Residents’ Association, arises from the fact that 74 units within the proposed development would not have access to a private balcony.
READ MORE
The development plan requires all proposed units to have access to private open space, the judge noted. The judge said the proposed development did not fall within exceptions to this requirement.
Ironborn Real Estate had said the reasoning for the omission of balconies from the 74 units was to improve daylight standards.
The development plan allows for a “reduction” in private open space in circumstances where there is access provided elsewhere to “communal support facilities”.
Interpreting this provision as allowing an omission of private open space within units is not the ordinary or more likely meaning of “reduction” in the plan, the judge held. He noted the “strong proposition” within the plan: “All proposed units must provide for private open space.”
The residents’ association had challenged the grant of permission on four other grounds, but these arguments were dismissed by the judge.
The judge also said he provisionally considers that the matter should be remitted back to ACP to be reconsidered. He will hear from parties later in the month before making final orders in the case.
In 2023, following a legal challenge brought by Fernleigh Residents’ Association, the judge quashed permission granted to Ironborn Real Estate to build a 445-unit development at the same site.
In that decision, he quashed the permission because there was a failure to comply with standards regarding the levels of daylight in the proposed apartments.
The judge also held that there was a failure to substantiate that there was adequate public transport capacity affecting the proposed development.
