Local groups bring legal challenges to developments in Meath and Dublin

A local interest group is pursuing a High Court challenge aimed at quashing planning permission granted for some 200 apartments in Co Meath.

An Bord Pleanála granted fast-track permission in November for the construction of five apartment blocks on lands next to the Southgate Shopping Centre in Drogheda.

The applicant, Protect East Meath Limited, represented by John Kenny BL, instructed by FP Logue solicitors, is also seeking a stay on works being carried out pending the resolution of the proceedings.

The case against the planning board, with developer Rockmill Limited as a notice party, is based on a number of domestic and European grounds.

Among the group’s core grounds of challenge is a claim the board erred in law by concluding that the proposed build would not materially contravene certain requirements of the Meath County Development Plan in relation to car and cycle parking provision.

The applicant also claims the board did not explain why it preferred traffic and congestion analysis from the developer over divergent expert reports submitted by observers. The developer’s report allegedly concluded that the proposed build would have “insignificant effects” while the observers’ expert analysis found it would lead to increased congestion on already over-congested roads, the group claims.

It is contended that reports and information submitted during the planning process by observers should be given the “same level of weight and respect” as those from other parties.

Balbriggan

In a separate challenge, Balbriggan Community Council, represented by John Kenny BL, instructed by FP Logue solicitors, seeks to overturn the expedited approval of 95 build-to-rent apartments in its north Dublin neighbourhood.

Rhonellen Developments Limited was given permission in November for the strategic infrastructure development on the site of a former shopping centre.

In its action against the board, with Rhonellen as a notice party, Balbriggan Community Council alleges the permission is invalid because the board attached a condition reducing the total number of residential units from 101 to 95.

This reduction, the group claims, means the development does not qualify as an SHD project and the board’s decision to grant fast-track permission was beyond its powers. The 2016 Act defines SHD residential projects as developments of 100 or more houses.

Other grounds include the decision is invalid because the board allegedly did not explain why it departed from the recommendation of its inspector to reduce the height of one of the apartment blocks and that it was “impossible” for the board to determine if the proposed works were compliant with Surface Water Regulations (SWR) as the nearby Bracken River has not been assigned a status for the purposes of the Water Framework Directive and SWR.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys granted leave to both groups, permitting them to proceed with their judicial review challenges. He adjourned both matters to a later date.