A High Court judge yesterday refused to make an order restraining demolition and other works at a hotel and office development in central Dublin. But Mrs Justice McGuinness said she regarded it as desirable that no irreversible work be carried out at the site pending the determination of legal matters on March 31st. Last week the judge rejected a challenge by Lancefort Ltd, stated to be conservationists, of Upper Ormond Quay, Dublin, to planning permission for the development.
She refused to grant orders quashing a decision of An Bord Pleanala granting planning permission for the development on a site bounded by College Street, Westmoreland Street and Fleet Street.
The judge was told the developer, Treasury Holdings, of Lower Grand Canal Street, Dublin, was losing £60,000 a week and had lost "millions" as a result of the proceedings.
Yesterday the judge said the case had not been about whether the decision to build a six-storey hotel in the centre of Dublin was right or wrong. What the court had to decide was whether the right procedures were followed in reaching that decision.
An agreement on certain works to be carried out at the site was reached between the sides after last week's judgment and that agreement was to remain in force until yesterday, when the court was to deal with a number of issues related to the case.
Lancefort yesterday applied for leave to appeal the High Court decision to the Supreme Court. Mr Paul Callan SC, for Lancefort, said the case involved several points of exceptional public importance and had implications for many other proposed developments across the country.
He said the Supreme Court should be asked to decide whether An Bord Pleanala had acted in accordance with the European Court of Justice's provisions regarding the public's European Community law rights.
The Supreme Court should also decide whether the High Court had reviewed the board's decision in accordance with the principles and directions given by the European Court of Justice to the national courts of EU states.
Mr Callan said the Supreme Court should determine whether An Bord Pleanala was required to consider whether certain proposed developments would be likely to have significant impact on the environment, necessitating the submission by the developer of an environmental impact statement based on which an Environmental Impact Assessment would be carried out.
The application was opposed by An Bord Pleanala, Treasury Holdings and the State.
Mr James Macken SC, for the board, said no point of law of exceptional public importance had arisen which was central to the case before the court. He said An Bord Pleanala had held an oral hearing and no one had suggested an Environmental Impact Statement was required.
Mrs Justice McGuinness reserved to March 31st her decision on whether to grant a certificate of appeal. She will also deal with the matter of costs on that date.
