The High Court has recently rejected an application for interlocutory reliefs preventing the development of the former Crown Paints site at Coolock, for use as an accommodation for international protection applicants and for use as an IPAS Accommodation Centre.
The case concerned Townbe UC, the leasehold owner of the former Crown Paints site. Townbe planned to develop the site for use as accommodation for international protection applicants by erecting 230 fabricated units to house 741 persons. In April 2024, Townbe’s planning consultants notified Dublin City Council of its intent to proceed with a change of use site without planning permission on the basis that it was exempt under Schedule 2 Part 1 Class 20F of the Planning and Development Regulation 2001. Following incidents of public disorder in July 2024, it was decided to cease with the plans until it was safe to do so.
The plaintiffs sought reliefs inter alia preventing the defendants (including Townbe) from housing international protection applicants at the site and compelling them to adhere to the precautionary principle in accordance with article 191.2 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) and obligations as to public participation in environmental process for which the Aarhus Convention applies.
The court found that neither the TFEU argument nor the Aarhus Convention argument were actionable before the Irish Courts. The court went on to examine the factual pleas and averments of the plaintiffs, which included themes such as the homelessness crisis, the facilitation of the entry of ‘unvetted’ migrants into the state, ‘cultural genocide’, increased criminality, the spread of disease and the implementation of ‘plantations’ in Ireland.
The court emphasised that the plaintiffs use of the word “unvetted” in the context of immigration conveyed that immigrants posed a special risk and threat not imposed by indigenous people, highlighting that communities may not as a matter of legal right vet or veto the arrivals of those who otherwise legally seek to live amongst them “whether they be Irish citizens, EU citizens, stateless persons or others. In Ireland “vetting” is not a precondition to living somewhere. In such “vetting” lies segregation”.
The court also stressed that the United Nations has made it clear that the Genocide Convention does not include “cultural genocide”. The court further determined that the case fell “well short” of the strong case required to justify a mandatory injunction compelling a public authority to exercise its discretion to frustrate a project which may be deemed as in the public interest.
Mr Justice David Holland, opined that the plaintiffs in this case, by their pleas and averments, “disclosed that they have taken an early step, but clearly a step, down a road which leads to racist xenophobia, discrimination and, history teaches us, not infrequently far worse”. As such the High Court rejected the application.
Click here to read the full judgement.