High Court Upholds Permission for 208 Kimmage Apartments After Third Local Challenge
The High Court has upheld permission for 208 social and affordable apartments in Kimmage, Dublin, dismissing a third challenge by local residents. Judge Richard Humphreys ruled in favor of developer 1 Terenure Land Limited, finding the residents' legal interpretation unconvincing. This decision follows previous successful challenges that saw earlier permissions overturned due to planning authority flaws.
The High Court has dismissed a third local challenge to a proposed development of 208 social and affordable homes in Kimmage, southwest Dublin. Judge Richard Humphreys on Friday upheld permission for developer 1 Terenure Land Limited, a subsidiary of Lioncor Developments, to build 208 apartments across five blocks, up to six storeys high, on an L-shaped site next to a gym off Kimmage Road West.
The developer also holds separate approval for a smaller project of 145 apartments on the same site, with up to 20 percent designated as social or affordable housing. This fourth planning permission was secured earlier this year, while the third approval for 208 homes was undergoing High Court review.
The judicial review was initiated by the Kimmage Dublin Residents Alliance CLG, which had previously succeeded in two challenges against the 208-home plan. In those instances, the planning authority conceded flaws in its application consideration, leading the High Court to overturn permissions granted in 2022 and 2023. The later application for the 208-home scheme was remitted for fresh consideration by An Coimisiún Pleanála, which re-approved the project in October 2025.
Judge Humphreys dismissed the latest challenge, stating the residents' group's primary grounds, related to EU environmental laws and the need for «very significant reasons» to contravene local development plan rules, required interpolating words not present in the legislation. He emphasized that the legal text's plain meaning is paramount, and the group failed to demonstrate why a different interpretation was warranted.