The High Court lifted an interim stay on a ministerial direction requiring Cork County Council and Cork City Council to coordinate their development plan work on whether retail outlet centres should be considered in Cork City and County. The court did not decide the underlying judicial review challenge or require either council to approve an outlet centre.
Cork County Council had sought to keep the stay in place pending its challenge to a separate ministerial direction under section 31 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. That earlier direction concerned Variation 2 of the 2014 Cork County Development Plan, which identified a preferred location for a retail outlet centre. The section 31 challenge was listed for hearing on 19 October 2021.
The present case concerns a direction made on 22 April 2021 under section 9(7) of the Act. It requires the two councils to jointly consider whether there is capacity and scope for retail outlet development in Cork City and County. The work could form an addendum to their joint retail strategy or a separate report. If the councils agree that development may be appropriate, the direction says their proposals should address its general location, format and scale. The direction also provides for the Minister to determine a dispute if the councils cannot agree.
The judge said the direction required a process of coordination, not a predetermined planning outcome. The councils could agree that there was no capacity or scope for outlet development. Any resulting policy would still have to meet applicable consultation and screening requirements.
Cork County Council argued that the section 31 case might establish that a joint approach was unnecessary, and that coordination now could disrupt its development plan process. The judge considered it only medium to low likely that the section 31 proceedings would determine the issues in this case. The two statutory powers concerned different development plans and operated at different stages. She also found no culpable delay by the Minister.
The judge weighed the direction’s implementation, the Office of the Planning Regulator’s recommendation for a joint retail strategy, Cork City Council’s willingness to participate, and the risk that a stay would prevent the work from informing the councils’ 2022–28 development plans. She considered the council’s environmental assessment argument weak at this stage: the direction set a process for considering proposals, rather than itself establishing detailed rules or concrete projects with environmental effects.
Concluding that the greatest risk of injustice would arise from granting a stay, the judge granted the Minister’s motion and lifted it. The section 9(7) direction therefore remained in force. The court made no final ruling on the lawfulness of that direction, and no dispute between the councils had yet been determined by the Minister.