Couple who want to build a home and business in Dublin mountain foothills fail in High Court challenge to planning permission refusal
A COUPLE who wanted to build a home and a horticultural business in the foothills of the Dublin mountains have failed in a High Court challenge to a refusal of planning permission.
Gillian Brophy, a process engineer, and her husband David Nulty, a project manager, had not made out a case for a judicial review of An Bord Pleanala's refusal of permission for the development on a 2.4acre site at Glassamucky Brakes, Glenasmole, Tallaght, Dublin, Ms Justice Marie Baker ruled.
The court heard the couple wanted to live and set up the business near to her parents' home at Amberville, Friarstown, Bohernabreena, Dublin, about two kilometres from Glassamucky.
They financed the purchase of the site from re-mortgaging a house they bought at Kiltipper Road, Tallaght, in 2005, and applied for planning permission for the development at Glassamucky, which was refused.
The couple, who have a young son, also rented out Kiltipper Road and moved with her parents. Their plan was to run the horticultural business on a part-time/weekend basis
After they were refused permission by South Dublin Council, they appealed and Bord Pleanala also rejected the application.
Ms Justice Baker said the council planner, in refusing the application, noted the couple intended to continue their respective employments until the horticultural business developed. The planner did not consider it was essential for them to live next to the business.
A Board Pleanala inspector, in his decision backing a refusal, found they had not demonstrated a genuine need to live in the area under the county development plan policy.
This "stringent" policy was justified given the foothills of the Dublin mountains "represent a very desirable place to live in the southern environs of the city" which has resulted in very strong urban based pressure for development, the inspector said.
The couple, in their High Court challenge, argued the board and its inspector wrongly focused on the horticultural business element and not on the broad question of their general need.
The board argued the "genuine need" was that of living next to the horticultural business.
Ms Justice Baker said the board in its decision, engaged fully with the facts of the case, and expressed the "same disquiet" as the local council, as did An Taisce in its objection, that the application could not meet the "strict hurdle imposed by the development plan for this area".