The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to South Dublin County Council’s decision to proceed with its original proposal for a soccer stadium at Sean Walsh Memorial Park in Tallaght.
Cumann Tomás Daibhís and its trustees challenged a council resolution passed on 13 February 2006. They argued that, after the council voted in December 2005 to modify the development, it had no power to return to the original proposal. The December modifications were intended to increase the pitch and alter the stands to accommodate other sports, and were conditional on significant further government funding.
The council had sought funding from the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism. In a letter dated 24 January 2006, the Department said the Minister could not provide funding for the modified development. The council then voted to proceed with the original plan. The applicants contended that this second resolution was outside the six-week period in section 179(4) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and was therefore invalid.
The notice party, Shamrock Rovers Football Club Limited, argued that the challenge was procedural, that the applicants had suffered no real prejudice, and that the court should use its discretion to refuse relief. It also submitted that the challenge would frustrate the stadium’s development.
Mr Justice Roderick Murphy held that the six-week requirement was mandatory for a resolution varying the manager’s report, but that it did not prevent the council from reconsidering its position when the conditional December resolution could not be implemented without funding. The judgment said the council could respond to the funding position and that the public consultation process and submissions had been considered in both decisions. The court found no requirement for a further consultation process in the circumstances described.
The court also considered the council’s statutory duty to have regard to available resources under section 69 of the Local Government Act 2001. It concluded that the council should not be required to commit to unbudgeted expenditure or have implementation of its February decision delayed.
The court refused the relief sought. The applicants had sought declarations and orders to quash the February resolution and prevent works except in accordance with the December resolution. The judgment records refusal of that relief; it does not set out a separate order directing that construction proceed.