Court quashes leave for apartment block height rise in Harold’s Cross

The High Court has made an order quashing An Bord Pleanála’s permission for part of a 248-unit housing development in Harold’s Cross, Dublin.

In a judgment Mr Justice Richard Humphreys said the planning board’s inspector did not clearly identify the extent of non-compliance present in the application to extend the height of some apartment blocks at the site of the former St Clare’s convent.

The wider housing development on the site has been the subject of eight planning permissions and three High Court judicial reviews.

The judge noted various permissions have been granted for portions of the project through normal planning procedures, but this height increase fast-track approval was granted under the strategic housing development process.

The proposed extension to four blocks to reach six storeys would have increased the number of housing units at the site from 220 to 248.

The applicant in these proceedings against the planning board, local resident Paul Walsh, raised concerns about privacy, claiming one of the blocks built during a previous development phase overlooks his home. Developer St Clare’s GP3 Limited, who was a notice party, decided not to appear at the hearing.

The judge noted the board granted permission notwithstanding that the development’s 19.6m tower height was a material contravention of the local development plan, which sets the maximum height at 15m.

The board is allowed to approve a development that contravenes a local plan in relation to building height. But the board’s inspector erred by not clearly identifying the extent of non-complaince with the height guidelines, said the judge.

Clear identification of any failure to meet standards is “critical to the evaluation of the acceptability of a project”, he said. Further, the extent to which an application falls short of building design standards, and why, is “critical to whether a substandard design, such as this should be accepted”.

Making clear he was speaking generally, and not about this project specifically, the judge added that it is important that enthusiasm for quantity of housing was qualified by an integrity as to the quality of housing. This, he said, was to help reduce the prospect of any “sub-standard, cramped, low-daylight apartments of today becoming the sink estates and tenements of tomorrow”.