The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by Killegland Estates Ltd over Meath County Council’s decision to change the zoning of its Ashbourne land from residential to community infrastructure in the 2021 county development plan.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2023, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan said councillors had given adequate reasons for the change. They wanted to preserve the 0.84-hectare site as an access point to a proposed public park, with an access road and car park. The Court found that the decision was taken principally for valid planning reasons and that the reasons were clear from the meeting minutes and motion papers.
The company had argued that the council failed to explain adequately why it departed from recommendations by its Chief Executive and the Office of the Planning Regulator to retain the site’s residential zoning. It also challenged the decision’s consistency with national and regional planning objectives, including policies encouraging compact growth and infill housing.
The councillors’ zoning changes formed part of Material Alteration 08 to the Meath County Development Plan 2021–2027. The alteration changed Killegland’s land from residential to community infrastructure and changed nearby land owned by notice parties Cornelius and Patricia Giltinane from rural to residential. A ministerial direction later restored the Giltinane land’s rural zoning; that direction did not affect Killegland’s land.
The Court rejected the argument that Killegland had to challenge the development plan’s entire core strategy alongside the zoning decision affecting its land. It also concluded that the national and regional planning objectives cited by the company did not require every infill site to be zoned for housing.
The judgment acknowledged that some councillors had wrongly believed the Killegland land belonged to the Roman Catholic Church and that swapping the two sites’ zoning was necessary. The Court considered those matters irrelevant to the planning decision, but said they were marginal and did not invalidate it. The Court dismissed the appeal; the judgment did not grant planning permission or otherwise change the site’s zoning.