High Court quashes council's rezoning decision on using industrial estate property for housing

High Court Reporter

The High Court has quashed a rezoning decision by Dublin City Council allowing for the construction of homes in an area which has mainly been used and zoned for enterprise/employment uses.

Mr Justice David Holland said he was quashing the decision to rezone the site near the Chapelizod Bypass, to allow for mixed residential and commercial uses, because of the failure of the council's chief executive to list in a report a submission from an objector who owns a plant firm next door to the site.

Construction plant and machinery supplier, Pat O'Donnell & Co, owns and operates a business next to the site which was formerly the Uniphar healthcare premises in an area known as the "California Heights".

The 1.82 hectare Uniphar site has largely been unused since 2017.

Pat O'Donnell & Co says it used to be based in Fairview but had to move to the California Heights premises in 2005 because of noise complaints from local residents and severe restrictions on what is a 24-hour a day business.

It said if houses are built next to its premises, it will be in the same position once again. It cost €7 million to move in 2005 and will cost more than double that to move again, it claimed.

In its 2022-28 Development Plan, the city council decided to change the zoning of the Uniphar site from its "enterprise/employment" zoning to "inner city sustainable mixed uses" with a focus on residential and commercial uses.

This proposal had the support of Uniphar, which had been contemplating redevelopment for a number of years.

Pat O'Donnell & Co objected, but the council went ahead with the rezoning. The company then brought a High Court judicial review challenge. The council opposed the challenge.

In a judgment quashing the decision, Mr Justice Holland said that contrary to the planning Acts, the chief executive, in a report in September 2022, did not summarise adequately or at all to Pat O'Donnell's submissions.

The submissions included that the decision would result in "arbitrary spot zoning" which would lead to a truncated and irregularly laid out zone and would impact on its business, which employs 100 people.

The judge said the seven-line response in the chief executive report was "not a response to the issues raised" by Pat O'Donnell. The text used in that report was identical to that in a previous chief executive's report on the matter made prior to receipt of the Pat O'Donnell submission, he said.

The judge said that as the parties disagreed over the issue of sending the matter back to the council for reconsideration or that it simply be quashed, he would hear them further on that issue in December.