The High Court quashed two ministerial directions that removed Carrickmines’ district-centre designation from Dún Laoghaire Rathdown’s 2010–2016 development plan and restored an earlier zoning. The court found that the Minister had applied the wrong legal test and that interested parties should have had an opportunity to comment on the specific measures imposed.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Clarke on 11 November 2010, concerned land owned by Tristor Limited at The Park Village, Carrickmines. Elected members of Dún Laoghaire Rathdown County Council had voted to designate the lands as a district centre, with up to 25,000 square metres of lettable retail space. The Minister opposed that designation and issued directions in March 2010 requiring the council to remove it and return the lands to Objective E zoning, for economic development and employment.
Tristor challenged the directions by judicial review. The case was heard as a “telescoped” hearing, combining the application for leave to seek judicial review with the substantive case. The court refused leave on Tristor’s legitimate-expectation claim and on its challenge to the Minister’s underlying power to intervene. It granted leave on the interpretation and application of section 31 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, and on fair procedures concerning the measures ordered.
The court held that section 31 did not allow the Minister to substitute a preferred planning strategy for one chosen by the elected council. The Minister could intervene if he considered that a plan lacked an overall strategy for proper planning and sustainable development, or significantly failed to comply with the Act. But the stated concerns—that the designation conflicted with a regional retail strategy and might harm other centres or increase car traffic—did not establish that the council’s plan lacked a qualifying strategy or otherwise breached the Act. The regional strategy had no formal legal status, and the court found no basis to conclude that the council had failed to have regard to the retail planning guidelines.
The court also said that, even if the Minister had grounds to intervene, he had to give interested parties an opportunity to make representations about the precise measures. The Minister had already raised his general concerns with Tristor, but the choice to restore Objective E zoning was a separate matter, and the court said it was not clear that this was the only way to remedy any breach.
The court ordered that both directions be quashed. It did not order the development plan to revert automatically to its pre-direction form. Instead, it said the plan should be remitted to the council to consider what measures were appropriate now that it was no longer bound by the directions. The judge said he would hear counsel on the precise orders and any ancillary orders required.