High Court finds no legal fault in rejecting extension of planning permission for houses in Dalkey

His Honor Judge David Holland rejected developer Grassridge Limited’s request for Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown District Council to refuse to extend its planning permission, which was granted in 2018 and valid for six years. He said the impeachment decision was “not devoid of considerable sympathy” for Grassridge’s position.

Grassridge asked for planning permission to be extended by two years, claiming the pandemic and high construction tenders had delayed the start of work on the site of a former care home on Ardbrugh Road.

Grassridge said work began in April this year, five months before the permit expired, and that preparing the site, leveling and demolishing the nursing home cost around €1.125 million.

The council said it had to reject Grassridge’s application for an extension because it was not satisfied that “significant work” had yet been carried out.

In its High Court challenge, the company claimed the council had misinterpreted the meaning of “essential business”.

Mr Justice Holland rejected this reasoning, concluding that the phrase was a “relative” rather than an “absolute” concept. He noted that the Council interpreted this statement to mean a “significant proportion” of the overall work.

Noting that the works carried out exceeded 1 million Euros, the judge said that the council did not determine that these works were important or ignored this possibility. He acknowledged that there was “strong evidence” to argue that the studies were important. However, this was a matter for the council to decide, not the court. The council said it did not have the discretion to refuse the extension when it decided the works were not essential.

Grassridge also claimed the refusal was disproportionate as the council was aware of the significant sums and the deadline by which the intention to start construction was accepted last April. ​

The council rejected disproportionality and stated that the acceptance of the developer’s notice to commence fell within the scope of the Building Control Regulations, which are completely separate from the planning regulations.

Mr Justice Holland dismissed the claims, finding there was no lack of fair procedure or proportionality.

He dismissed Grassridge’s other complaints, including his claim that the decision contained legal and factual errors.