A five-year planning permission for an apartment scheme for Phibsborough in Dublin is not long enough due to the threat of a High Court judicial review, according to a property developer.
A planning appeal has been lodged on behalf of Bindford Ltd against conditions attached to a Dublin City Council planning permission for 184 apartments for its scheme at Cross Guns Bridge in Phibsborough.
As part of the Cross Guns Large Scale Residential Development (LRD), Bindford had originally proposed a seven-year permission for 196 apartments made up of 118 build-to-sell apartments and 78 build-to-rent units within three blocks, ranging in height from three to 12 storeys.
In its decision in July, the council ordered the omission of three floors in the 12-storey block, reducing the number of units to 184 as part of a five-year planning permission.
Stealth sackings: why do employers fire staff for minor misdemeanours?
How much of a threat is Donald Trump to the Irish economy?
MenoPal app offers proactive support to women going through menopause
Ezviz RE4 Plus review: Efficient budget robot cleaner but can suffer from wanderlust under the wrong conditions
Two third party appeals have also been lodged against the council decision by John Conway and the Louth Environmental Group, and residents group LUMRA (Leinster, Ulster and Munster Streets Residents Association) seeking that the permission be overturned.
In the Bindford appeal, planning consultants McGill Planning note that a previous permission for the same site was subject to a High Court judicial review and quashed.
McGill stated that the new LRD permission “may be questioned in the same way”.
The consultants state that the planning system does not take account for judicial review procedures “and the lengthy nature of the court process”.
McGill Planning stated that planning permission for the quashed Strategic Housing Development (SHD) scheme was granted in May 2021 but the High Court judicial review hearing was set for two years later on May 3rd 2023.
The consultants state that An Bord Pleanála decided not to pursue a defence of the case in April 2023.
McGill stated that if the case had gone the other way and planning permission was retained, a three-year timeline for the developer to substantially complete the scheme after securing funding and going to tender “is a very tight time frame”.
“For this reason, it was deemed prudent to request a duration of seven years to account for the potentially lengthy judicial review process,” the appeal states.
McGill contends that the omission of the three storeys was ‘unreasonable’ “and will have a detrimental impact on the character of the overall development”.
In the Lumra appeal, BPS Planning and Development Consultants argue that “the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of over-development and over-intensification of the site”.
