Judicial review of SHD approval - general conversation

Caranica

A thread promoting a gofundme for a judicial review was closed on here today, in accordance with the charter and boards rules. But one post caught my eye

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117273267&postcount=3

It quoted the reasons for the review from the gofundme page and said that they appeared valid.

Now it's my understanding of the judicial review process, that you cannot appeal on the merits of the application, rather on issues with the planning process, missing elements etc.

One of the most common grounds I've noticed for review, and often successful reviews at that, is failure to account for protected wildlife on the site.

Issues like County development plan, density and height are all merit of application issues and were all thrown out at the time of the introduction of SHDs as part of Rebuilding Ireland.

So it baffles me that an appeal would focus on these. Does anyone have more knowledge on the subject?

I know we need housing but the SHD process is inherently undemocratic and removes one step of the appeal process, thus driving residents to very very expensive judicial reviews. Thankfully the process will finally be abolished in the first half of next year.

Cuddlesworth

1. The development will be highly overbearing to surrounding areas and constitutes an overdevelopment of the site
   
   Maybe, 22 stories would make it the tallest building in Ireland I guess.
   
2. - The proposed height is contrary to the Ballyogan and Environs Local Area Plan and the Building Height Guidelines as well as the County Development Plan
   
   I'm going to guess that plan requires 3-4 bed semi-d's and 2-4 story apartment blocks? At some point we have to start going up and not out. We are at the foot of the Dublin mountains already.
   
3. - The site fails to be at the scale of the relevant city/town and would therefore be contrary to the zoning objectives of the subject site
   
   They should check out what the land 200 meters away on the other side of the M50 is currently in development for.
   
4. - This development does not align with and support the objectives and policies of the National Planning Framework
   
   Does every single development have to?
   
5. - Will negatively impact the local wildlife and impact the biodiversity that exists in the area
   
   Doesn't every single development do this?

banie01

A few months ago, I raised a topic here regarding the possiblity of an Irish organisation similar to the Good Law Project in the UK.
Which is resources and funded via donations and crowdfunding.

One of the bars raised to a similar organisation here was Champerty and maintenance.
Surely similar issues arise here?
That those donating to this case are seeking a share in the relief even if that relief is only a revisit of the decision?

sdanseo

Judicial reviews shouldn't be allowed for planning matters unless there's been some appalling miscarriage of justice like a private home compulsorily purchased for a subpar value or something like that. And even then should be limited to redress for the people directly affected.

ABP exists for a reason, and is perfectly capable of doing its job.

The reason you can't object to a part of the application is because ABP is the appeals body for planning, and so if it has made a decision in relation to, for example, an application contravening a LAP, then that is considered to be the final appeal.

Getting housing built is more important than entertaining frivolous NIMBYs - there are enough checks and balances without wasting everyone's time.

Also, Biodiversity < the housing crisis. We can live without a few toads and birds. There are not enough homes in Ireland. People need to extract their heads from the sand and live in the real world.

Caranica

sdanseo wrote: »

Judicial reviews shouldn't be allowed for planning matters unless there's been some appalling miscarriage of justice like a private home compulsorily purchased for a subpar value or something like that. And even then should be limited to redress for the people directly affected.

ABP exists for a reason, and is perfectly capable of doing its job.

The reason you can't object to a part of the application is because ABP is the appeals body for planning, and so if it has made a decision in relation to, for example, an application contravening a LAP, then that is considered to be the final appeal.

You're missing the point of SHDs. If I want to build 99 units, I apply to the Council. My unhappy neighbours can lodge objections. Local authority members get to provide feedback. The council decide, let's say they grant pp. My unhappy neighbours can make a third party appeal to ABP who then commence a new process, with a whole new round of objections, then ABP decide. Only option for unhappy neighbours then is judicial review, which would be unlikely to succeed given they've lost twice already.

SHD applications (100+) go straight to ABP. ABP are not the appeals body in these cases, they are the deciding body. There is no course of appeal other than through the courts.

sdanseo

I'm not missing the point, I understand completely. The local authority is skipped on the basis that the project is of national level importance and thus ABP is only & ultimate body removing the grounds to appeal. That does not alter the fact that a state body has analysed the proposal and decided it is in the public interest. In the context of a housing crisis combined with our already very conservative planning laws, together with the ridiculous interventions of people from 100km away and the like of An Taisce, that is more than enough checks and balances for me.

We need homes more than we need duplicitous process in these very particular cases.

C14N

Caranica wrote: »

One of the most common grounds I've noticed for review, and often successful reviews at that, is failure to account for protected wildlife on the site.

Issues like County development plan, density and height are all merit of application issues and were all thrown out at the time of the introduction of SHDs as part of Rebuilding Ireland.

I strongly suspect that most people use the former as the official reason for objection when their actual reason is the latter. For basically 100% of developments you are going to be impacting local wildlife in some way, so you can always stall and block by arguing that not enough is being done to preserve the local bat population or whatever.

Personally, I think allowing this as a valid objection is very much a case of missing the forest for the trees, at least when its used in areas that are already built up (such as Carrickmines, or Dundrum where I've also seen these objections). People are going to have to end up living somewhere, and they do far less damage to the environment if they live close to work, their social circle, and shops than if they end up getting pushed further out of the city, where they are encroaching even further onto surrounding land. This ends up requiring additional roads, services, and cars, which will have a far greater negative environmental impact for the country as a whole.

ec18

sdanseo wrote: »

I'm not missing the point, I understand completely. The local authority is skipped on the basis that the project is of national level importance and thus ABP is only & ultimate body removing the grounds to appeal. That does not alter the fact that a state body has analysed the proposal and decided it is in the public interest. In the context of a housing crisis combined with our already very conservative planning laws, together with the ridiculous interventions of people from 100km away and the like of An Taisce, that is more than enough checks and balances for me.

We need homes more than we need duplicitous process in these very particular cases.

The SHD was a interesting idea but ultimately flawed. People who are being affected by a development and may want to preserve some of their area should be allowed to register a concern or objection. If that check doesn't exist it is handing over too much lee way to developers and will cause problems in a year or two.

All SHD's really accomplish is creating traffic black holes for larger developers. The scheme has it's use but is in complete in allowing ABP be the whole decider.