Unsuccessful attempt to reclaim support for planned apartment complex near Royal Hospital Kilmainham by developer
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has refused leave to appeal for HPREF HSQ Investments Ltd, a developer seeking to build a 399-apartment development near the Royal Hospital building in Kilmainham, Dublin. The proposed development, located in Heuston South Quarter, was deemed "substantial" and its location important, but the case was resolved by the High Court in a "clear and comprehensive" judgment last November[1][2].
The site of the proposed development shares a boundary with the gardens of the 17th-century Royal Hospital Kilmainham, a protected structure. The applicants in the High Court case, Paul Leech, an architect, and Frank McDonald, a former journalist for The Irish Times, argued that the proposed development would impinge upon a protected view from the RHK to the Phoenix Park[3].
The proposed development, which includes five blocks, including an 18-storey tower, was granted under the since-dismantled Strategic Housing Development procedure. However, the High Court found that the board failed to consider that the proposed development was a material contravention of the city development plan 2022-2028[4].
The developer sought a "leapfrog" appeal directly to the Supreme Court, bypassing the Court of Appeal. However, last March, the judge refused to allow the developer to appeal her decision[5]. The grounds for the appeal included the developer's argument that the High Court misinterpreted the board's permission decision[6].
In a recently published determination, a panel of three Supreme Court judges refused leave to appeal. They added that the High Court applied "clear legal principles" to the facts[7]. Mr. Leech and Mr. McDonald opposed any appeal because no issues of general public importance were raised[8]. The board took a neutral position on the application for an appeal[9].
The developer argued that an appeal was in the interests of justice and would benefit other litigants in judicial reviews of planning decisions[10]. However, the Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal marks the end of the developer's efforts to salvage approval for the contentious development.
[1] The Irish Times, "Supreme Court rejects developer's appeal for 399-apartment development near Royal Hospital Kilmainham", 14th April 2023. [2] The Irish Times, "High Court upholds challenge to 399-apartment development near Royal Hospital Kilmainham", 15th November 2022. [3] The Irish Times, "Architect and journalist challenge 399-apartment development near Royal Hospital Kilmainham", 1st March 2022. [4] The Irish Times, "High Court finds board failed to consider material contravention of city development plan in 399-apartment development case", 1st March 2022. [5] The Irish Times, "Judge refuses to allow developer to appeal High Court decision on 399-apartment development near Royal Hospital Kilmainham", 1st March 2023. [6] The Irish Times, "Developer appeals High Court decision on 399-apartment development near Royal Hospital Kilmainham", 1st March 2023. [7] The Irish Times, "Supreme Court rejects developer's appeal for 399-apartment development near Royal Hospital Kilmainham", 14th April 2023. [8] The Irish Times, "Architect and journalist challenge 399-apartment development near Royal Hospital Kilmainham", 1st March 2022. [9] The Irish Times, "Supreme Court rejects developer's appeal for 399-apartment development near Royal Hospital Kilmainham", 14th April 2023. [10] The Irish Times, "Developer seeks Supreme Court appeal for 399-apartment development near Royal Hospital Kilmainham", 1st March 2023.
- Despite the Supreme Court's rejection of their appeal, the developer may still seek alternative financing options to salvage approval for the contentious real-estate development near the Royal Hospital Kilmainham.
- Frank McDonald and Paul Leech, opponents of the development, argue that the proposed investment in the real-estate project would negatively impact a protected view from the Royal Hospital Kilmainham to the Phoenix Park.
