Plans for development of 320 new homes in Trim put on hold

Plans for the development of 320 new homes in Trim, Co Meath, have been put on hold after the High Court referred a legal challenge against the project by an environmental group to an EU court.

Mr Justice Richard Humphreys has sought clarification from the Court of Justice of the EU in relation to the interpretation of EU legislation governing protected sites, including special areas of conservation.

Eco Advocacy had sought a judicial review of the decision by An Bord Pleanála last October to grant planning permission for 136 houses and 184 apartments at Charterschool Land, Manorlands, Trim.

The application by Keegan Land Holdings for the development was approved by the board under the fast-track planning process for strategic housing developments.

Councils will be asked to find out why properties are vacant, Minister says

---

Minister says time is right to act on Airbnb

---

Eamon Ryan insists rents can be reduced in investor apartment stamp duty row

---

Dáil unexpectedly passes SF motion seeking Dublin affordable housing for €230,000

---

Eco Advocacy, which is based in Enfield, Co Meath, said it was concerned about the provisions of legislation that excludes the public from the pre-planning consultation between a developer and local authority in applications for strategic housing developments.

It also claimed its concerns about the size and height of the proposed development by Keegan Land Holdings, and that its environmental impact and impact on the cultural and architectural heritage of Trim were not properly considered by An Bord Pleanála.

The group maintained that no appropriate screening was carried out for an Appropriate Assessment as required by Irish and EU law, while the board’s finding that the development was unlikely to have significant effects on the environment was “wholly inadequate”.

It claimed environmental concerns raised by An Taisce and Meath County Council were also not properly addressed or considered.

In addition, Eco Advocacy claimed the developer and related companies had breached planning laws in relation to the operation of a quarry.

Motive

In response, Keegan Land Holdings has complained that there was a lack of bona fides by Eco Advocacy in its application for a judicial review, and that the group had misled the court and was animated by hostility towards the developer.

The company claimed the group’s “true and primary motive is to delay, obstruct and frustrate the developer”.

However, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said such allegations were “over-cooked”.

In his ruling he dismissed most grounds of Eco Advocacy’s application on the basis that the pleadings were not adequately articulated or misconceived.

However, Mr Justice Humphreys ruled there was an issue about whether the project’s proposed surface water drainage system, from which water will flow into a tributary of the river Boyne, constituted a mitigation measure for the protection of an EU site or whether it was just a standard design feature irrespective of any effect on the European site concerned.

The judge also determined clarification was needed from the Court of Justice of the EU on whether An Bord Pleanála was required to provide an explicit and detailed statement of reasons dispelling all reasonable doubt concerning the effects of a development on a European site when it determined at the screening stage that no Appropriate Assessment is required.