Plant machinery company challenges Dublin City Council's rezoning decision
A company that supplies plant machinery and equipment has launched a High Court challenge against a decision of Dublin City Council to rezone lands from commercial/industrial, to mixed use.
The action has been brought by Pat O'Donnell and Company which claims the Council’s decision to make a variation to its development plan and rezone lands at Chapelizod bypass/Kylemore Road in Dublin 20, is flawed and should be quashed.
The lands in question, part of which contain the company's business premises while other parts are owned by other parties, had been zoned primarily for industrial uses.
Last March Dublin City Council (DCC) made a decision to rezone those lands as mixed use development of which office, retail and residential would be the predominant uses.
The variation was voted on and passed by the elected members.
Represented in court by Jarlath Fitzsimons SC, appearing with David Dodd Bl, the company said DCC had originally proposed to change the zoning of the lands from industrial to residential.
Counsel said his client was been based in Fairview in Dublin 3 had relocated to its current location in Chapelizod some years ago after the owners of adjoining residential properties that had built up around it over the years raised issues about the level of noise coming from its premises.
Not a minor modification
Counsel said the company was concerned that the same thing may happen again if residences are built in and around its property at California Heights, Chapelizod.
Counsel said his client made submissions in regards to DCC's proposals to rezone the lands as residential. However DCC rezoned the lands for mixed use.
Counsel contended the decision is flawed on grounds including that his client had no opportunity to be heard fully and fairly on a decision which affects the company's property and commercial rights.
Changing the proposed zone from residential to mixed use was not a minor modification counsel said.
Counsel added that the decision was irrational and that no adequate reasons were given by DCC as to why it had modified its original proposal.
Counsel added that the challenge was also being brought on grounds that DCC failed to comply with its obligations under EU law and conduct either an appropriate assessment or a Strategic Environmental Assessment in relation to the variation of the development plan.
Counsel said that Uniphar Group Plc, which owns some of the lands that have been rezoned by the council has indicated that it wants to develop residential properties on the lands.
As well as seeking the order quashing the decision, the company also seeks various declarations including that the decision was made unlawfully and breached the 2000 Planning and Development Act, and was in breach of fair procedures.
Uniphar was made a notice party to the proceedings.
Permission to bring the challenge was granted, on an ex-parte basis, by Mr Justice Michael Twomey.
The judge who also granted a stay on DCC's decision to rezone the lands at the subject of the challenge pending further order of the court.
The matter will return before the court next month.
