The High Court has granted leave to a company to challenge a refusal of planning permission for a mixed-use apartment and commercial development in Carrickmines, Co Dublin.
Last September, Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council refused permission to Carrickmines Land Ltd for 404 apartments, a supermarket, three non-retail commercial units, a gym and community space at Priorsland in Carrickmines Great and Brennanstown.
On Wednesday, Mr Justice Charles Meenan granted Eoghan Foley, for Carrickmines Land, permission to bring judicial review proceedings against the council seeking to quash the refusal and remit the application back to the council for consideration in accordance with law or directions of the court.
The application to court was made ex-parte, meaning only Carrickmines Land was represented in court.
Mr Foley told the judge it was essentially his client’s case that instead of refusing permission, the council could have dealt with the application by seeking further information from the developer or by attaching conditions to the permission.
In its statement of grounds, Carrickmines Land says, among other things, the council retained third-party professionals to prepare reports on whether the application was consistent with the environmental parameters of the Strategic Development Zone for Cherrywood which includes these lands.
Those professionals identified parts of the application as not being consistent and recommended further information be required.
Flood risk
A second cohort of third-party professionals was retained by the council to assess flood risk and storm water proposals relating to the development. They also recommended seeking additional information, as the information in relation to flood risk was insufficient.
Each of the reasons for refusing the permission can be readily addressed by way of condition providing points of detail to be agreed between the council and the developer or by way of request for information, Carrickmines Land says.
It says the decision was invalid because the council failed to indicate the main reasons for not accepting the recommendations to request further information.
The judge said the matter could return before him next month.
