Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown Council’s decision to rezone lands owned by a student accommodation developer from residential to open space was done for valid planning reasons, the High Court has been told.
The council made the argument in defending an action brought by developer Colbeam Ltd, which is challenging the local authority’s 2022-2028 county development plan arising from the rezoning decision.
Colbeam has sought to build a 698-bed student accommodation complex at Our Lady’s Grove, Goatstown Road, Dublin 14, which is about 850 metres from University College Dublin (UCD).
The developer previously secured planning permission from An Coimisiún Pleanála for the development, but this decision was quashed following a separate, successful High Court challenge.
RM Block
Colbeam had bought the site in 2017 from the Congregation of the Religious of Jesus and Mary for €13 million.
The land – which had been part of a wider campus that includes Our Lady’s Grove primary and secondary school – was zoned residential under the council’s 2016-2022 county development plan, which was in effect at the time of the purchase, Colbeam has said.
But before adopting the 2022-2028 county development plan, councillors adopted motions to rezone Colbeam’s land from residential to open space.
On Thursday, David Browne SC, for the council, said councillors adopted motions to rezone primarily for planning-based reasons. These included consideration for open space at the Our Lady’s Grove campus and concerns about incremental development on that space.
Colbeam has argued that councillors had regard for “irrelevant consideration” in adopting the motions to rezone.
But Mr Browne said that if the principal reason for the rezoning decision was a planning one then that was a valid decision.
Mr Brown said certain remarks made by councillors in debating the rezoning motions were indicative of “marginal” considerations in the decision to rezone and should not invalidate the decision.
On Wednesday, Neil Steen SC, for Colbeam, had argued that councillors had regard for “irrelevant consideration” in adopting the motions to rezone.
One of these irrelevant considerations arose from purported comments made at the meeting by Fine Gael councillor Barry Saul, one of the members who initially proposed to rezone the land.
In advancing the argument to rezone the lands, Cllr Saul referred to “a failure of moral obligation” on the part of the Congregation of the Religious of Jesus and Mary to maintain a required level of open space on their lands, Mr Steen said. The open space requirement arose from an “institutional land” designation.
Mr Steen said Mr Saul made it explicit that part of his intention in supporting the rezoning was to address this “failure”. Counsel said moral obligation was an irrelevant consideration in the decision to rezone.
Mr Steen said his clients were entitled under legislation to a decision uncontaminated by irrelevant considerations.
He said if the court found councillors took an irrelevant consideration into account in making the decision to rezone then the decision should be quashed.
Mr Justice David Holland will give his ruling at later date.
