The High Court quashed the recreational zoning of McCaughey Developments Limited’s lands at Lower Point Road, Dundalk, after finding the company had been denied a fair opportunity to make submissions before the zoning was decided.
In a judgment delivered on 10 May 2011, Mr Justice Hedigan severed and quashed the part of the Dundalk and Environs Development Plan 2009–2015 relating to the company’s lands. He remitted the zoning question to Dundalk Town Council, whose elected members must consider submissions from all interested parties before reaching a decision. The rest of the plan remains unaffected.
The company bought the 10.85-acre site from Dundalk Port Company in March 2006 for €1.7 million, intending to seek permission for housing. The previous development plan zoned it residential. A mapping error put recreational, amenity and open space zoning on the site in the draft 2009 plan. After the company objected, council officials recommended restoring residential zoning, and elected members agreed in September 2009. The company’s managing director was told of that vote by the Town Clerk and a councillor.
After a further public consultation, 24 submissions opposed residential zoning. Elected members voted in November 2009 to retain recreational zoning, despite a manager’s recommendation to restore residential use. The company learned of the decision in March 2010 and began proceedings in April.
The council argued that the challenge was out of time and that Louth County Council should have been joined. The judge treated 19 March 2010, when the company learned of the later vote, as the relevant date in the unusual circumstances and found the proceedings had been brought within eight weeks. He also found the case was not improperly constituted: the company’s lands were within Dundalk Town Council’s area, and the court could quash only the part of the plan affecting them.
The court rejected the claim that the zoning decision was irrational. It found the council had relevant material before it, including public submissions raising concerns about road capacity, use of the recreational facility, incomplete dwellings and effects on a protected view.
But the company had not been given a chance to respond to those submissions. The judge said the Town Council could have invited further submissions and, given the earlier assurance that residential zoning had been restored, should have been mindful of the company’s right to fair procedures. He found a breach of natural and constitutional justice. The order quashed the zoning provision and sent the issue back for reconsideration; it did not itself rezone the lands residential.