The High Court has found that Galway City Council’s 2009–2013 Traveller Accommodation Programme continued to provide for two halting sites after councillors voted to remove two paragraphs from the draft plan.
Mr Justice McMahon ruled that the council’s “joint motion” was directed at deleting those two paragraphs in section 4.6, rather than removing every reference to halting sites. The published programme retained an objective to provide two residential halting sites in 2012, which the judge found addressed the needs identified in the plan.
The judgment resolves only an initial issue in the judicial review. The court had agreed to determine the effect of the motion before hearing submissions on how that determination affected the relief sought. The judge said those submissions would be heard at a later date.
The applicants alleged that the adopted programme failed to include implementation measures for the two sites identified as a need, putting the council in breach of its statutory duties. They argued that the motion removed all references to halting sites. The council maintained that the programme still recognised the need and that its executive had taken steps towards providing two sites.
The programme identified two additional residential halting sites as a need, with a possible third site subject to further applications and assessment. The judge rejected the applicants’ argument that the remaining programme had to provide for that possible third site, finding that “possible” described a potential future need rather than a present identified need.
In interpreting the motion, the judge said the first, general motion had been modified by a second, more specific motion. He considered it unreasonable to read the councillors’ single vote as passing both motions independently. The published programme’s removal of only the two section 4.6 paragraphs supported that reading, he said.
Even if those deletions were effective, the retained objective in section 4.2 meant the programme still recognised and provided for the identified need, the judge concluded. He also noted evidence that the council executive had continued to take steps towards the two-site objective.
The judgment left open a separate legal argument raised during the hearing: that councillors had no power to amend the draft programme. The judge said that, if so, the attempted amendment had no legal effect and the draft would have been adopted in full. The court has not yet determined the ultimate relief in the judicial review.