OBJECTORS to the proposed £35 million five-star Hilton Hotel off College Green, Dublin, were yesterday given leave in the High Court to challenge the project.
Lancefort Ltd, of Ormond Quay Upper, Dublin, formed by conservationists to contest environmental issues, was given leave by Mr Justice Morris to seek a judicial review on two grounds.
One of the grounds allowed is a constitutional challenge to parts of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts.
The action is against An Bord Pleanala, the Minister for the Environment and the Attorney General. Treasury Holdings, Stokes Place, Dublin, the developer, is a notice party.
The hotel would be bounded by College Green, Fleet Street and Westmoreland Street. An Bord Pleanala gave permission for a 167-bedroom hotel on the site, subject to certain conditions.
Yesterday Mr Justice Morris said that in seeking leave to take a judicial review it must be established that there was a substantial case to be heard. In this case there were four grounds and he had found that, of those, two substantial cases had been made out.
The first ground he was allowing was in relation to Section 23 of the Local Government Planning and Development Act, 1976, which required the inspector of a site to include an account of his inspection in his report to the board.
It was submitted by the company that the inspector did not allude to his site inspection at any time during the oral hearing by An Bord Pleanala, that the board did not have this information at the time it decided this appeal, and that its decision was therefore void.
The second ground involved challenges to the constitutionality of the local planning Acts.
The company sought a declaration that Section 14(8) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, was unconstitutional.
It submitted that this section permitted An Bord Pleanala to grant permissions for the development of land which were at odds with a development plan. The planning authority, on the other hand, was bound by its provisions.
The power given to the board did not accord with the principles of social justice or the exigencies of the common good required by the Constitution, the company argued.
Lancefort was also seeking a declaration that Section 19(3) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992, is repugnant to the Constitution.
It submitted that the section unconstitutionally limited the right of a company or other interested parties to obtain access to the courts under the Constitution for an adjudication of An Bord Pleanala other than by way of action for judicial review, and then only in a limited form as described in the section.
Mr Justice Morris said he was satisfied that the company had made out a case for hearing and would give leave to seek judicial review on the constitutional issues.
Earlier he said that the company did have locus stand to take the case. He said members of the company had established their bona fides by the work and interest they had in the project.