Local businessman battles HSE’s primary care centre for Baggot Street

High Court Reporter

A businessman is taking a High Court action challenging a grant for permission for a primary care centre at the rear of the old Baggot Street Hospital in Dublin 4.

Eamonn Hoey, who runs a dry-cleaning business on Baggot Street, was on Monday given permission by the court to pursue the case challenging An Coimisiún Pleanála’s (ACP) grant of permission to the HSE to build the centre to the rear of the protected structure, known previously as the Royal City of Dublin Hospital.

Mr Hoey, of Upper Baggot Street, Dublin, is seeking an order quashing ACP’s October 7th decision to grant permission for the development, which is proposed to contain a methadone clinic and drug treatment facility.

On Monday, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys granted leave to Oisin Collins SC, appearing for Mr Hoey, to pursue the judicial review proceedings.

A litigant must obtain leave, or permission, from the High Court in order to pursue judicial review proceedings.

According to his court papers, Mr Hoey claims ACP erred in law by granting the permission for several reasons.

Among Mr Hoey’s arguments is his claim that ACP failed to recognise the proposed development constitutes a material change of use of the site.

It is his case that in recent years, the HSE has considered various uses for the site, including as a housing development for public sector employees or social housing. In doing so, the HSE abandoned the site’s use as a healthcare facility, and an attempt to “resurrect” that use constitutes a material change requiring a grant of permission, Mr Hoey’s case claims.

Mr Hoey also claims ACP failed to assess whether the proposed use of the development as a methadone dispensary and drug counselling centre was in accordance with principles of proper planning and sustainable development, as required under the Planning and Development Act 2000.

It is his case that he and other objectors submitted to ACP various reasons why the development was not in accordance with the principles, including “concern regarding crime, violence, antisocial behaviour, proximity to schools, impacts on businesses and the quality of life of local residents”.

Mr Hoey further claims that public notices erected and published by the HSE in respect of its intended development and application for planning permission “failed to describe the nature and extent of the development as required by law”.

He further asserts that ACP failed to determine “as a matter of law and fact” whether the proposed design of the development was in contravention of the Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028.

The case returns in the new year.