Residents win permission to challenge rugby club’s pitch conversion over planning exemption

Residents of south Dublin have secured High Court permission to challenge Dublin City Council’s finding that a boys’ school does not need planning permission to make changes to its rugby pitch.
Last August, the local authority acceded to an application from the congregation behind the fee-paying St Mary’s College in Rathmines for a planning exemption to switch to using artificial grass over natural grass and for the installation of a 1.2m fence around a reconfiguration of its pitches at Kenilworth Square.
Local campaign group Protect Kenilworth Square and Kenilworth Square resident Martin Joyce were on Monday granted leave by the High Court to continue their case seeking an order overturning the council’s decision.
Mr Justice Richard Humphreys queried whether there might be any request for the case to be passed to a judge who has no connection to the area. He said there could be difficulty finding such a judge, as “Rathmines seems to be almost ground zero for the legal profession.”
[ Kenilworth Square residents ‘outraged’ at planning exemptions granted to St Mary’s CollegeOpens in new window ]
Tom Flynn, the senior counsel instructed by FP Logue solicitors for the residents’ group, said he did not see any need to seek out a different judge.
In their legal papers, the group and Mr Joyce claim the council’s decision is invalid as the proposed “development” is not exempt within the meaning of the 2000 Planning and Development Act as it forms part of a wider development that was not referred to the council.
They allege there is a more extensive plan that includes installation of floodlighting, the construction of a large new pavilion, vehicular entrance and a car park. They claim this full proposal will see eight mature trees replaced by 74 new trees.
The applicants say only part of this project was subject to an exemption referral to the council while the Congregation of the Holy Spirit has said it intends to apply for planning permission for the floodlights and the pavilion. There is no provision for a party to “cherry pick” part of a development for exemption, they say.
“The relevant question is whether the overall proposed Kenilworth Square development is exempted development,” they argue.
[ Kenilworth Square residents’ group takes legal action over St Mary’s rugby pitch planOpens in new window ]
They claim the council also legally erred by concluding that the replacement of three grass pitches with one 4G synthetic pitch and one grass pitch is exempt from planning permission under a clause laying land for sports. Putting in an artificial pitch amounts to the construction of a “structure”, as that term is defined in the 2000 Act, they say.
Citing EU law grounds, the applicants claim the council failed to properly consider the development’s likely effects on the environment and whether it should be subject to an environmental impact assessment.
The case will return to court in a few weeks.