The High Court has refused Kathleen Coll’s application to quash Donegal County Council decisions concerning a proposed road closure and an extension of planning permission for a shopping centre and filling station at Bunbeg, Co Donegal.
In a judgment delivered on 7 July 2005, Mr Justice Michael Peart ruled that the Council was not prevented from reconsidering a proposal to extinguish a public right of way, even after elected members had voted against it. He also held that Coll had no standing to challenge the separate decision extending the planning permission. The court refused all relief sought.
The development permission, granted by An Bord Pleanála in November 1999, required the developer to realign part of Strand Road and complete road works to the planning authority’s satisfaction before the development was used. The proposed realignment would replace a section of the existing road with a new section leading to the R257.
Coll, who was also acting for the Strand Road Residents Association, and other residents raised safety concerns about the new road and junction. They objected to extinguishing the existing public right of way under a process initiated in 2002. In October 2003, councillors voted 15 to eight against the proposal. The Council later said it intended to restart the statutory process after receiving legal advice that the earlier decision had not been validly made.
The judge did not decide whether that earlier vote was invalid or whether councillors had taken irrelevant matters into account. He found that section 73 of the Roads Act 1993 did not prevent the Council from considering the closure proposal again. The earlier rejection had left the existing arrangement in place, he said, but did not bar reconsideration at a later date.
The judgment also drew a limit around the residents’ role in the process. The public consultation concerned whether the existing right of way should be extinguished; it did not give residents a right to prevent construction of a replacement road. The roads authority was responsible for addressing safety and road-standard concerns, the judge said.
Separately, the Council extended the planning permission on 29 October 2004 so it would expire on 28 October 2005. The court held that Coll lacked standing to challenge that decision because she had not participated in the planning process and the extension procedure did not require public consultation. The judge added that the Council could reasonably have considered the development likely to be completed within a reasonable time, given its view that the road-closure proposal could be reconsidered.