The High Court ruled that a notice served by Kildare County Council in a compensation claim by Abbeydrive Developments Limited was invalid because it was issued outside the statutory three-month period. It also found that none of An Bord Pleanála’s stated reasons for refusing planning permission fell within the specified statutory grounds that would exclude compensation.
The ruling, delivered by Mrs Justice Macken on 17 June 2005, answered two questions referred by arbitrator John R. Shackleton in a special case stated. The court did not determine the amount of compensation payable. That remained for the compensation process.
Abbeydrive applied in March 2000 for permission to build 187 homes on lands at Broadleas Commons and Ballymore Eustace, County Kildare. A revised proposal was for 176 houses. Kildare County Council decided in November 2000 to grant permission for 149 units, subject to 77 conditions. An Bord Pleanála refused permission in May 2001.
Abbeydrive then claimed €28,127,238, which it described as the reduction in value of its interest in the lands. The council sought copies of two conveyances cited in the claim. The court held that this request sought supporting evidence under Article 111 of the 1994 regulations; it did not notify Abbeydrive that its claim failed to meet Article 109’s requirements. The claim, which described the company as owner and identified the conveyances, was validly lodged on 11 July 2001. The council’s notice, served on 13 December, was therefore late and invalid.
The second question was conditional on the notice being invalid. The council argued that An Bord Pleanála’s reasons for refusal corresponded to grounds in the Third Schedule to the 1990 Act, which would bar compensation. Those reasons referred to Ballymore Eustace’s special village status, the proposed development’s scale, inadequate public transport and deficiencies in the road network, among other matters.
The court rejected the council’s arguments under the schedule provisions it considered. It found the refusal reasons did not establish a material contravention of a development-plan objective, prematurity linked to specified road constraints or development priorities, serious traffic congestion, or injury to the amenities of property in the vicinity. It answered the arbitrator’s second question “no”: those stated reasons did not exclude compensation under the provisions at issue.
The judgment resolved the legal questions referred by the arbitrator. It did not assess the claimed loss or make an award of compensation.