The High Court has quashed planning permission for a 10-storey build-to-rent apartment development in Donnybrook, Dublin.
Red Rock Donnybrook Ltd had received permission from An Bord Pleanála to redevelop the Circle K-occupied site at the junction of Donnybrook Road and Brookvale Road, opposite Donnybrook stadium, for 67 apartments.
Dublin City Council had refused permission for Red Rock’s original application, envisaging a 12-storey 84-apartment development, for reasons including that it would result in excessive height and mass, provided for insufficient car parking, and may prejudice the future provision of public transport infrastructure.
Red Rock appealed to the board and in doing so revised the original application to reduce the height by two storeys and the number of apartments to 67.
The board inspector recommended refusal for failure to comply with urban building height guidelines, that it constituted overdevelopment and would have an unacceptable negative visual impact on a prominent site within Donnybrook Village.
However, the board in August 2022 granted permission for the revised development.
The Eglington Residents Association and Ramleh Villas resident David Clarke then brought a High Court challenge against the board to that decision. Red Rock was a notice party.
The residents argued, among other things, that the permission was invalid because of the failure of the board to attach a condition requiring a financial contribution in lieu of the 10 per cent open space requirement for new developments. It was also invalid for failure to consider whether or not the development, without such a condition, materially contravened the City Development Plan, they said.
Ms Justice Emily Farrell, in a judgment published this week, quashed the decision.
She said that, in this case, the provision of public open space was a significant and relevant policy within the plan and no rationale for contravening this policy was readily apparent or had been suggested.
There was no provision in the policy for the option suggested by the board that permission may be granted for a development that does not satisfy the 10 per cent open space requirement and which does not require a financial contribution in lieu, she said.
It was necessary either to comply with the public open space policy or consciously depart from it if that was what it did, she said.
