The High Court has refused a judicial review application by Aughey Enterprises Limited and Barry Aughey over a proposed fifth spur at a roundabout on the Monaghan town bypass, finding they had not established that Monaghan County Council gave the assurances they alleged.
The dispute concerned a roundabout planned at the N2/N12 Armagh Road junction, near lands owned by the applicants. The council’s plans showed five spurs, including one leading towards their lands. A 2001 compulsory purchase order authorised the acquisition of 0.055 hectares from Aughey Enterprises and 0.296 hectares from Barry Aughey.
The applicants had objected to confirmation of the order. They withdrew their objections after a meeting with council representatives on 22 August 2001. Barry Aughey later alleged that he was assured a fifth spur would be installed and that it would provide access to the applicants’ lands. He said the assurances led them to withdraw their objections. Their legal case, as narrowed at the hearing, was that the council could not remove the spur from its plans without first consulting them and allowing them to make representations.
The council disputed that account. Its engineer, Patrick Johnson, said the council had made clear there were no immediate proposals for a future road and that it would remove the spur from the plans. He denied any promise to build the spur or to provide a private access to the roundabout. He also said the meeting’s subsequent correspondence contained no such commitment.
After hearing evidence, Mr Justice Garrett Sheehan said he could not rely on Barry Aughey’s evidence. He cited a serious memory lapse during cross-examination about plans prepared by his architect sister in 1999. The judge preferred Johnson’s evidence and noted that Aughey’s later correspondence with the council did not mention the assurances he said had prompted the withdrawal of the objections.
The court held that the applicants had not established that the disputed assurances were given. Because of that finding, the question of legitimate expectation did not arise. The judge refused the relief sought. The judgment does not determine any future planning application for development of the lands or access arrangements.