Council win number of High Court challenges to County Development Plan

PAUL MURPHY

Meath County Council has won a number of court challenges taken against its new county development plan which came into effect last November.

The High Court applications for judicial reviews of the plan were taken by four development companies in addition to a non-profit environmental campaigning company and the cases, which have been defended by the county council, have been heard over the last number of weeks..

The companies are Protect East Meath, Killegland Estates Ltd, McGarrell Reilly Homes, Hickwell Ltd (Hickcastle Ltd), and Dolent Properties.

A report on the upshot of the cases was delivered to councillors at their monthly meeting on Monday by council legal advisor Rory McEntee.

The council was notified about the court decisions last Friday. The legal advisor said that the challenge by Killegland Estates to the zoning of certain lands in Ashbourne had been dismissed by the court in what was described as a “win” by the council.

That case has been adjourned to 11th July so that the judge can deal with any consequential matters that might arise, including an appeal currently before An Bord Pleanala.

In the meantime, the zoning of the land as G1 (community, recreational, and educational facilities) will remain as decided in the county development plan approved by councillors last year.

In the McGarrell Reilly case (a challenge to the zoning of land in Kilcock and Stamullen) the judge held against the company and that case has also been put back to 11th July to hear the court’s view on what will now happen.

The Hickwell case, relating to an “indicative road at Clonee” and how the route traverses the landowner’s property, awaits judgement but in “an unusual” move the judge gave an indication to the parties as to what his judgement would be.

He held with the council on a number of issues, including the environmental assessment, but was against it on the process and level of engagement with the developer over the issue of the entitlement of the developer as part of the planning permission to build what was essentially a public road through the land. The judge is waiting to see if that can be resolved between the landowner and the council.

The Protect East Meath is not finalised although there is partial judgement in that the council held with the council on the issue of environmental assessment. The question in this case relating to the zoning of land in the Drogheda Southern environs has yet to be decided.

The judge expressed concern that landowners in that area had not been joined as “notice parties” in these proceedings. PEM has been told by the court to notify all relevant landowners so that they can come to court and “have their say”. That has been adjourned to 18th July.

In the case of Dolent, Mr McEntee said that “potential” resolution had been reached between the developer and the council, with liberty to return to the court “if things didn’t work out”.

The land in question had been identified as “potential flood risk” but an OPW scheme nearing completion may remove this risk. If the works are completed successfully, the developer can submit a new planning application which will come before council planners for consideration (and if it complies with current zoning), and then come to the councillors for approval as “a material contravention” of the development plan, with the proviso that the planning issue has “not been prejudged”.

On the council agenda, councillors were asked to approve “the proposed resolution of judicial review proceedings of Dolent Properties, together with Remcoll Capital Ltd and Meath County Council”. Some councillors complained that they did not have enough information about this proposal.

However, a roll call vote resulted in the resolution being passed by 27 votes to one, with five abstentions and seven absentees. Independent Cllr Brian Fitzgerald called for restraint among cllrs from commenting on certain cases because of the possibility of appeals to the Supreme Court.