The High Court said it would in principle grant relief to Hickwell Limited and Hickcastle Limited over an indicative road route crossing their lands at The Hub Logistics Park in Dunboyne, after finding Meath County Council had not adequately explained its decision to include the route in the county development plan.
In a judgment delivered on 12 July 2022, Mr Justice Humphreys found that the council’s reasons for the road itself were inadequate in light of a detailed expert report submitted by the companies. The council had cited general aims including better connectivity, improved permeability and network resilience, but the judge said those points did not address the report’s specific objections to the road’s need.
The court also found no clear reason had been given for the particular diagonal alignment adopted at a late stage of the development-plan process. Although the route was described as indicative, the judge said its inclusion could affect the landowners. The route had changed through successive plan drafts, with the diagonal line appearing in material amendment MA05 in 2021.
The judge held that the council’s explanation was erroneous insofar as it said the road was an objective of the current development plan. He found it had been an objective in an earlier plan, but that objective was removed from the 2021–2027 plan. The judge also concluded that the lack of adequate and accurate reasons meant the council had not properly addressed the effect on the companies’ property rights under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court rejected the companies’ argument that requiring landowners to build their own sections of the road was itself unlawful or inadequately explained, assuming the decision to have a road had been properly reasoned. It also dismissed their project-splitting argument under the environmental impact assessment and habitats directives.
The companies’ separate challenge concerning the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive and the masterplans associated with neighbouring data-centre applications was also dismissed. The judge said they had not pleaded or shown how screening of those masterplans could have changed the outcome for their lands. He therefore saw no need to refer the EU-law questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
The court did not make a final quashing order at that stage. It invited written submissions on the form of relief, allowed submissions on any consequential changes to the plan, and said the parties could seek time to consider consultation, negotiation or mediation. The matter was listed for mention on 25 July 2022 to address outstanding issues.