A Tallaght GAA club has been granted leave by the High Court to seek judicial review of South Dublin County Council’s decision to proceed with a football stadium without modifications that would have allowed GAA games to be played there.
In a judgment delivered on 30 March 2007, Mr Justice O’Neill ruled that Cumann Thomas Daibhis had shown both a substantial interest in the matter and a substantial ground for contending that the council’s decision should be quashed. The ruling grants permission to bring the judicial review proceedings; it does not determine the challenge or grant the relief sought.
The dispute concerns the council’s 13 February 2006 decision to proceed with the stadium at Whitestown Way, Tallaght, as originally proposed. On 12 December 2005, the council had resolved to modify the plans, including enlarging the playing area to 140 by 85 metres so GAA games could be played. The Department of Arts, Sports and Tourism later said it could not provide funding for the modified development. The council then voted 22 to 4 to proceed with the original proposal.
The club sought declarations that the February vote was invalid, an order prohibiting works except in accordance with the December resolution, and an order quashing the February decision. Shamrock Rovers Football Club Limited was joined as a notice party. The council and the club disputed that the applicant had a substantial interest, arguing, among other things, that access was never intended and that the funding refusal meant the modified project could not proceed.
Justice O’Neill said the December modification would have made GAA games possible, while the original proposal would permit them only at underage level. He found the applicant was the GAA club most closely connected to the stadium and the one likely to benefit most directly from access. The fact that other clubs might share an interest did not, in his view, prevent this club from having a substantial interest of its own.
The proposed legal challenge is that, after adopting the December modification, the council could not reverse it through a resolution passed outside the six-week period in section 179(4)(c) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, without repeating the consultation process. The council and Shamrock Rovers argued that the provision allowed multiple resolutions and that a new consultation would serve no legitimate purpose.
The judge held that the timing and scope of the council’s power raised a substantial ground for challenge. He made no further ruling on its merits, saying it would be inappropriate at the leave stage. He also said the funding issue did not warrant refusing leave, as it could bear on the court’s discretion after hearing the substantive application. The judgment concludes that the club should have leave to apply for judicial review for the relief claimed.