New laws aimed at fast-tracking apartment size changes could result in High Court challenges, lawyers warn
High Court
challenges, legal sources have warned.
The planned amendments to the Planning and Development Bill 2025 would allow developers who have already secured planning permission to build smaller and more apartments in the same scheme without submitting a fresh planning application. Instead they could apply for a 'permitted modification', which the relevant planning authority must determine within eight weeks.
Minister for Housing
James Browne
last Tuesday issued the new apartment guidelines, which allow developers to build smaller apartments in a greater density. The guidelines reduce the minimum size of a studio apartment from 37 sq m to 32 sq m. They also do away with restrictions on the specific mix of units within a development.
The move is aimed at closing a viability gap between the cost of building apartments and their achievable sale price.
READ MORE
There was a fear this change to standards would result in further delays to building, as developers would have to resubmit planning applications to benefit from them. There are about 57,000 apartments proposed for Dublin for which construction has not yet started, the
Department of Housing
said last week.
In an effort to address these concerns over delay, the department has proposed amending the Planning Act to allow developers to incorporate changes to their scheme without making a fresh application.
This amendment, seen by The Irish Times, will go to the Seanad for approval on Tuesday, before going back to the Dáil on Wednesday.
Part 44B of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Bill 2025 outlines how a developer with planning permission could modify their permission in line with the new apartment standard guidelines.
They could apply to the original planning authority, either the local council or
An Coimisiún Pleanála
, for a 'permitted modification' by providing revised drawings.
The planning authority must approve the revisions within eight weeks of receiving them.
The change cannot be granted as a permitted modification if the development has already commenced, if an environmental impact assessment is required, or if the changes would result in the number of dwellings in a strategic development zone exceeding the number permitted by a planning scheme.
The Bill says any decision made under this amendment cannot be appealed to An Coimisiún Pleanála.
However, one legal source said the legislation is flawed and potentially unconstitutional due to the lack of public consultation on what could be a significant change to a developer's building plan.
Any 'permitted modification' decision could be challenged in the High Court by way of judicial review, sources said.
Another planning lawyer said the new guidelines for apartment standards are quite modest in what they are trying to achieve and because of this the amended legislation came as no surprise.
However, they also said that if an existing planning permission had previously been the subject of a judicial review, it is unlikely a developer will seek to amend their current permission by way of this 'permitted alteration' clause because it would open them up to the possibility of another unwanted legal action.
The Social Democrats' housing spokesman Rory Hearne TD said he is 'deeply cynical' of the changes to the Bill. He claimed they point to a Government 'ramming through amendments' to the Act, 'giving no time for detailed discussion or analysis of changes that will have profoundly negative impacts on housing for decades to come'.
'These changes are another example of the Government sacrificing younger generations to the investor funds and developers who are clearly the priority interests for the Government,' the deputy said.
'We will be vigorously opposing these changes being bulldozed through the Dáil and Seanad this week,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Supreme Court orders another hearing of challenge over fraudulent online email account scheme
The Supreme Court has ruled there should be another hearing of a Swedish man's High Court challenge over a finding that $651,000 (€557,000) held in an Irish bank account represented the proceeds of a fraudulent online email account scheme. An appeal by Harry Zeman, a director of Swedish firm Routeback Media AB, to the Court of Appeal (CoA) over the High Court decision was dismissed in 2022. A five-judge Supreme Court heard a further appeal last April and in a unanimous decision on Tuesday, with one judge dissenting in part, it allowed the appeal and ordered the case go back to the High Court so that fresh evidence could be considered. The original High Court application to have the money declared the proceeds of crime was brought by the Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab). READ MORE That court heard the money was collected by Routeback, trading as Local Mart, over just four days as part of a scam primarily targeting card holders in the United States. The Cab claimed Swedish police sent information regarding Mr Zeman's alleged ties to organised crime, the court also heard. The High Court ordered in 2011 that Routeback and Mr Zeman could not dispose of or deal in the asset pending further order, under Section 3.1 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1996. That decision was not appealed in time and seven years later, in 2018, the Cab sought a final disposal order of the money, forfeiting it to the State, under Section 4 of the 1996 Act. At this final disposal hearing, Mr Zeman claimed procedural unfairness and that he had new evidence. The High Court ultimately made a final disposal order in 2022. The Supreme Court ruled that while a non disposal/non dealing Section 3.1 order was final in nature, there remained scope under the legislation for the respondent to raise fresh evidence but only in strictly limited and justified circumstances. It did not change the fact that litigants must present their full case at the earliest possible opportunity, it said. It said it was allowing the appeal for the case to be remitted to the High Court for a limited hearing focused solely on genuinely new evidence. The burden is on Mr Zeman to prove the assets did not derive from criminal activity or that making a disposal order would be unjust, it said. In a judgment with which Justices Gerard Hogan, Séamus Woulfe and Maurice Collins agreed, Mr Justice Peter Charleton said an unjust order should not be made where there may be claims that an uninvolved party's assets have been mixed with criminal property. Alternatively, if a respondent failed to contest the original non disposal/non dealing order due to, for instance, illness, duress or lack of awareness, but now presents tenable evidence, then such a case may raise interests of justice, he said. He also said there is no automatic right to cross-examine deponents in proceeds of crime cases. Cross-examination is under the court's oversight and is limited to issues where new evidence, with factual disputes, require it and with the focus remaining on what is necessary for an efficient and just resolution, he said. Mr Justice Collins also gave a judgment in which he agreed with Mr Justice Charleton and disposition of the appeal. Mr Justice Brian Murray agreed the appeal should be allowed, but dissented in part in a separate judgment. He outlined in nine points the proper relationship between applications made under the relevant Section 3 and 4 of the Proceeds of Crime Act.
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Catherine Connolly formally announces bid to seek election for presidency
Independent TD Catherine Connolly has formally announced her bid to seek election for the presidency. The left-wing Galway West representative said she did not make the decision overnight and was doubtful enough about the move, but was convinced by the correspondence she got from people asking her to run. She outlined the reasons why she decided to run and her vision for the presidency while speaking on RTÉ Raidió na Gaeltachta Adhmhaidin programme. 'I was taken aback by the support I received, I wasn't expecting that level of support from people across the country, in English and Irish,' she said speaking in Irish. READ MORE She said she was independent, was 'not afraid to speak out' and outlined her vision for the role. 'I will give an ear to everyone, I worked as a clinical psychologist for seven years, and then I worked as a barrister. From that experience I can hear everyone's opinion.' On Tuesday, Fine Gael's Mairead McGuinness became the first official nominee in the presidential race to replace Michael D Higgins after his term comes to an end in the autumn. Ms McGuinness, who was a TV presenter and farming journalist before becoming an MEP and EU commissioner, is the nominee to become Fine Gael's presidential candidate. The election to succeed Mr Higgins is set to take place in late October or early November. Prospective candidates need the support of 20 Oireachtas members to get on the ballot paper. Fianna Fáil has not clarified if it will run a candidate and is to make a decision in the early autumn. Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald has also refused to rule herself out of the running. Ms Connolly has received the backing of the Social Democrats and People Before Profit, with the Labour Party to 'very seriously' consider backing her. Ms Connolly worked as a barrister and a clinical psychologist before becoming a councillor for 17 years and spending a term as Galway mayor until 2005. She resigned from the Labour Party in 2006 after being turned down to be a running mate of then incumbent TD Michael D Higgins. She was first elected to the Dáil as an independent candidate for Galway West in 2016. Speaking on Wednesday, she said she did not 'fall out' with the Labour Party and said she understood that Labour and Sinn Féin were considering support her, adding she already had the support of more than 20 Oireachtas members. Asked about who would pay for her campaign, she said the parties that have backed her 'were happy' to give her any support she needs, but the details had not yet been worked out. She was also asked about her stance on the war in Ukraine – about the suggestion that she did not clap during Volodymyr Zelenskiy's address to the Dáil in April 2022 and whether Ukraine should be sent arms by other countries. She said she had criticised Russia 'many times' and was despondent about the failure of diplomacy in relation to the conflict, but that does not give Russia 'any excuse'. She said she did clap for Mr Zelenskiy in April 2022 but said some journalists reckoned her applause 'did not go on long enough or was not strong enough'. She added: 'I want us to use our voice as a neutral country. I am very worried about the direction Europe, the US and other countries are going in. More war does not bring about peace, that is not the way. 'We're a small country with a particular history and we should use that experience and influence, not just in relation to Russia, but in relation to Israel and Gaza too.' - PA
Irish Times
2 hours ago
- Irish Times
Prominent US politicians calls Occupied Territories Bill ‘extreme antisemitic hate'
A large number of US politicians have warned the Government that enacting the Occupied Territories Bill would be harmful for Ireland . The proposed bill is expected to be put before the Dáil in the autumn. The legislation would prohibit trading with companies operating in illegal settlements in the West Bank and other occupied territories. At least 10 members of Congress have shared their criticisms of the bill on X in what would appear to be a concerted campaign. They were joined by the US ambassador to Israel Mick Huckabee who posted on X: 'Did the Irish fall into a vat of Guinness & propose something so stupid that it would be attributed to act of diplomatic intoxication? It will harm Arabs as much as Israelis. Sober up Ireland! Call @IsraelMFA & say you're sorry!' [ Government effort to ban occupied territories trade gets EU boost Opens in new window ] Lisa McClain, the chair of the House Republicans, stated that 'any legislation boycotting, divesting, or sanctioning Israel would be a huge mistake for Ireland. 'This type of extreme anti-Semitic hate is unacceptable and should be rejected.' On X, Rep McClain linked to an article from The Hill website which warned that the passing of bill would create a 'real and immediate legal risk not for Israel, but for American companies and investors'. The article, authored by three legal academics, Mark Goldfeder, Anat Beck and Erielle Davidson, outlines that the United States has had a long-standing policy going back to 1977 that US companies will not be allowed to participate in any boycott of Israel. 'Federal anti-boycott laws make it illegal for US companies to comply with foreign government boycott requests targeting Israel,' it says. 'That means American firms that change their behaviour in response to Ireland's new law – whether by cancelling contracts, terminating suppliers or rerouting goods away from Israeli partners in the West Bank – could face serious penalties at home.' More than 36 US states have adopted laws that bar companies from receiving state contracts if they boycott Israel, it said . Well-known US senator Lindsey Graham posted: I hope that Ireland will reconsider their efforts to economically isolate Israel, as they are in a fight for their very existence. I do not believe these efforts would be well received in the United States and they certainly would not go unnoticed.' Senator Rick Scott also linked to The Hill article: 'This foolish move not only wrongfully targets Israel & the Jewish Community, but also harms American businesses. They should think twice about the message they're sending by passing this bill, which complicates our economic relationship & targets our ally.' This foolish move not only wrongfully targets Israel & the Jewish Community, but also harms American businesses. They should think twice about the message they're sending by passing this bill, which complicates our economic relationship & targets our ally. Other members of congress who have warned Ireland about the consequences of the problem including congress members Mike Lawler, Mike Crapo, Peter Stauber and Claudia Tenny among a growing number of US politicians, most of them Republican, who have vocally opposed the Occupied Territories Bill Two weeks ago US Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Senator Jim Risch said the Occupied Territories Bill 'will only lead to self-inflicted economic suffering' for the State. Writing on X, the veteran Republican senator for Idaho said: 'Ireland, while often a valuable US partner, is on a hateful, anti-Semitic path that will only lead to self-inflicted economic suffering. His comments were rejected by Taoiseach Micheál Martin. 'I would reject any assertion that this is anti-Semitic. I'm appalled of that assertion and that's something we're going to correct,' he said in response to Senator Risch's comments. 'We will work on our economic interests. We'll work to explain our position to interlocutors in the US and to the US administration.'
