A Supreme Court decision yesterday cleared the way for a controversial hotel and office development in central Dublin. By a majority of four to one, the court dismissed an appeal by Lancefort Ltd, a company of conservationists, of Upper Ormond Quay, against the High Court's rejection last March of its challenge to the development. The majority found Lancefort Ltd did not have locus standi to mount such a challenge. Ms Justice Denham disagreed.
Planning permission for the development was granted by An Bord Pleanala on December 11th, 1996, to Treasury Holdings Ltd, Lower Grand Canal Street, Dublin, for a site bounded by College Street, Westmoreland Street and Fleet Street.
Legal proceedings challenging the development were initiated by Lancefort in early 1997.
In his judgment, with which the Chief Justice, Mr Justice Hamilton, agreed, Mr Justice Keane said it was not surprising that the proposed redevelopment of such a sensitive and important site in the centre of Dublin should have provoked controversy.
He said planning permission was granted, subject to 15 conditions, by An Bord Pleanala after an oral hearing. Lancefort was incorporated in December 1996, a week after permission was granted.
In the Supreme Court appeal, Lancefort submitted that a 1985 European Council Directive and Article 56 (2) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Regulations 1994 required An Bord Pleanala to assess whether the development required an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in the light of, it was submitted, the development being likely to have a significant effect on the environment although falling below the threshold at which an EIA was required.
The arguments of the board and Treasury Holdings were substantially confined to the locus standi of Lancefort - whether a limited liability company with no material property or assets likely to be affected by the development was entitled to maintain the proceedings.
Because he found Lancefort had no locus standi, Mr Justice Keane said it was not necessary to express a view on the question which the High Court had certified as a ground of appeal, saying it involved a point of exceptional public importance. This was whether An Bord Pleanala should be required to assess whether an EIA is required in respect of a development which the board considers is likely to have a significant effect on the environment but which falls below the fixed thresholds required under the 1985 Directive and the Irish regulations.
Mr Justice Keane said neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court was at any stage given an indication of how it was alleged that the assessment carried out by the board failed to elicit data relevant to an assessment of the effects on the environment.
He said an examination of the merits of the case led him to the conclusion that, if there had been any irregularity in how the board discharged its functions, it could not possibly be regarded as constituting an abuse of power or a default in procedure sufficiently grave to justify affording locus standi to a body like Lancefort.
He said that while Mr Michael Smith of Lancefort had attended the planning hearing on behalf of An Taisce, as did junior counsel, they had not objected that an EIA had not been required by the planning authority or the board.
He dismissed the appeal as did Mr Justice Barrington and Mr Justice Lynch.
In the sole dissenting judgment, Ms Justice Denham said she was satisfied Lancefort had locus standi in the case. The fact that Lancefort was a company did not bar it from litigation. She was satisfied the company was acting bona fide. This, and other factors including the participation by company members in the prior planning and development procedures, gave it locus standi.
The court adjourned the matter of costs to a later date.