The High Court has ruled the wife of singer Van Morrison, Michelle Morrison, has established the necessary “substantial grounds” entitling her to bring a challenge to the alleged failure of her local council to protect her family’s privacy when dealing with planning permissions for a neighbour’s house in Dalkey.
Ms Morrison, née Rocca, of Kilross House, Sorrento Road, had sought leave from the court to bring proceedings aimed at quashing Dun Laoghaire Co Council’s decision to accept a notice of compliance with a planning permission issued for the redevelopment of neighbouring Mount Alverno, where Desmond and Mary Kavanagh live.
The planning acts provide that judicial review challenges to planning decision may only be brought if substantial grounds for such challenges are shown.
Mr Justice Michael Hanna said he was satisfied Ms Morrison had established substantial grounds to bring proceedings against the Council, with the Kavanagh’s as notice parties.
The judge reiterated comments made by him during the six-day leave hearing earlier this year about the ultimate costs of the case. Those remarks that the case would cost “an awful lot of money” were more stark and relevant than ever as a full trial was likely to take even longer, he said.
In her action, Ms Morrison claims the landscaping proposed for Mount Alverno will cause significant overlooking of her family’s property.
She claims, before accepting the compliance notice, the council failed to take account of unauthorised amendments to previous permissions granted for the neighbouring property, described by her counsel as a 7,500 square foot “Celtic Tiger type house”.
Without proper landscaping, and in particular the replacement of a number of trees, a “gangway” style balcony in the Kavanaghs’ home seriously overlooks Ms Morrison’s rear garden while a large number of first floor windows in Mount Alverno also intrude on her family’s privacy, it is claimed.
Overlooking of her driveway and front living room have already been caused by works to the entrance of Mount Alverno which were also not done in compliance with planning permission and involved the removal of a tree which was supposed to have been retained, it is also claimed.
The Kavanaghs had proposed providing replacement screening between the properties with shrubs like bay laurel, holly, and cherry laurel but Ms Morrison’s experts argue semi-mature canopy trees to match those which have already been removed are required.
In his judgment today, which only dealt with whether Ms Morrison was entitled to bring the judicial review, Mr Justice Hanna said there was a substantial conflict between the parties about relevant factual aspects of the case, including the precise date on which trees were felled.
He said Ms Morrison has a substantial interest in the matter and the work on her neighbours’ property clearly affects or has the potential to affect her enjoyment and amenity of her home.
He disagreed with the Council’s argument that failure to comply with a pre-commencement condition of a planning permission did not render a development unlawful and was not of itself fatal to a planning decision.
The judge believed this was a substantial ground entitling her to leave to challenge the decision. Ms Morrison’s complaints in relation to failure to comply with a condition regarding tree replacement tree planting were “neither trivial nor tenuous”, he said.
