The High Court has dismissed Killegland Estates Limited’s challenge to Meath County Council’s decision to rezone land in Ashbourne from new residential use to community infrastructure.
The company sought judicial review of the council’s adoption of the Meath County Development Plan 2021–2027, specifically material amendment 8, which changed the zoning of its land at Killegland from A2 (New Residential) to G1 (Community Infrastructure). In a judgment delivered on 1 July 2022, Mr Justice Humphreys rejected the challenge and ordered that the proceedings be dismissed.
The company argued, among other grounds, that the council had not given adequate reasons for departing from the chief executive’s recommendation, had failed to follow planning policies on the sequencing of development, and had acted inconsistently with national and regional planning frameworks. The judge found that the council was entitled to change the zoning and that the court could not revisit the planning merits of that choice.
The court said the reasons for the change could be understood from the council’s records, including motions, minutes and supporting documents. Those materials described a proposal for community infrastructure on the site, including an entrance and parking to serve a proposed linear park along the Broadmeadow River. The judge said the company’s own submission showed it understood that rationale and had addressed it.
The judgment also found that the council had regard to the relevant planning guidelines and that the challenge had not established a breach of the National Planning Framework or the Eastern and Midland Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy. The court rejected the claims that relevant matters were ignored, irrelevant matters taken into account, or the decision was irrational.
The company had received planning permission for 31 dwellings on the land in October 2021, before the new development plan came into force. Third-party appeals against that permission were pending. The judgment did not determine those appeals or the planning application’s ultimate outcome.
The court had previously amended the stay so it applied to the processing of current or future planning applications for the contested lands, rather than suspending the development plan itself. The order continued that limited stay until the next mention date, 11 July 2022, when consequential matters were to be addressed.