Dunne takes legal action against docklands authority

PROPERTY developer Sean Dunne has brought legal proceedings challenging a decision by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority that a €200 million development on Dublin’s north quays, which surrounds on three sides development lands owned by Mr Dunne, is exempted development.

Mr Dunne claims the development is unauthorised and that the docklands authority was wrong to conclude it was exempted development — not requiring planning permission.

He claims a certificate of exempted development was invalid and unlawfully issued because the proposed development does not comply with the objective of the Docklands North Lotts planning scheme, including the objective of providing an east-west route between New Wapping Street and Catsleforbes Street.

The proposed mix of uses, height and design of the development is also inconsistent with the planning scheme, Mr Dunne claims.

A “monolithic” eight- storey apartment block proposed to the immediate eastern boundary of his property has no regard for these and other issues in the planning scheme, he claims.

Mr Justice Peter Kelly yesterday admitted to the Commercial Court two related sets of proceedings arising from the decision of the development authority of July 13 last that a proposed developed by North Quay Investments (NQI) at a site bounded by North Wall Quay, New Wapping Street, Mayor Street and Castleforbes Road was exempted development.

The action has been taken by Mr Dunne and North wall Property Holding Company, against the development authority and NQI.

In the first set of proceedings, Mr Dunne and the holding company want an order quashing the development authority decision that the proposed development is exempted development.

They also want a court declaration that any certificate issued by the authority under Section 25 of the Dublin Docklands Development Authority Act 1997 should be subject to particular conditions.

Garrett Simons, for Mr Dunne and the holding company, said the development is proceeding and his side was anxious for an early hearing date.

In the second set of proceedings Mr Dunne and holding company want orders restraining alleged unauthorised works on the site of the disputed development and also want an order requiring restoration of the lands.