The High Court refused Michael Egan leave to seek judicial review of An Bord Pleanála’s consent to Athlone Town Council compulsorily acquiring 63 Connaught Street, Athlone. The decision, made on 20 May 2008 under the Derelict Sites Act 1990, concerned a property Egan grew up in that the court found had remained derelict for many years.
Egan sought to quash the Board’s decision, arguing that he had not received earlier council notices and that the Board failed to hold an oral hearing or give him a chance to respond to the council’s final observations. He said notices sent to incomplete or incorrect addresses had not reached him, and that he had engaged a contractor to carry out repairs. He also argued that compulsory purchase was disproportionate.
The Board and council disputed his case. The Board said an oral hearing was discretionary and that Egan had been invited to make written submissions. The council’s February 2008 observations said his solicitor had had numerous conversations with the council about the derelict site. The Board’s inspector reported that no work was evident during a site inspection on 5 March 2008 and recommended acquisition.
Justice Hedigan said compulsory acquisition seriously interfered with property rights, but found the Board had evidence that the property met the statutory definition of a derelict site. The court considered its boarded windows, unrepaired façade and other defects likely to detract from the neighbourhood’s appearance, and concluded that acquisition was justified by the common good.
The judge rejected the arguments about notice and fair procedures. He said the Board had told Egan that an oral hearing was not mandatory and that it would notify him if one were arranged; there was no basis for his assumption that a hearing would take place. The council’s February observations raised no new issue requiring another round of submissions, the court found. It also held that the council was not required to exhaust less restrictive measures before using its compulsory acquisition power.
The court did not grant leave, so the substantive judicial review challenge was not heard. It refused leave to seek judicial review of the Board’s decision.