The High Court has rejected a challenge by two landowners seeking to preserve a Limerick County Council resolution which would have rezoned lands on the outskirts of Adare for development.
P.J. Farrell and Barbara Forde owned lands north of the village and had entered agreements to sell them to developers. Their properties were zoned agricultural in the draft Adare Local Area Plan, but submissions sought mixed-use development on one parcel and low-density residential development on another.
On September 29, 2008, the elected council members passed a resolution accepting the County Manager’s report subject to amendments which, in effect, would have rezoned the applicants’ lands.
County Manager Edmund Gleeson subsequently determined that the resolution was not legally effective. On October 17, 2008, he ordered that the Local Area Plan proceed in accordance with his earlier recommendation that the agricultural zoning remain, subject to further consultation on other material alterations.
Farrell and Forde challenged that decision by judicial review, arguing that the elected members had validly exercised their statutory role.
Mr Justice Brian McGovern accepted that elected representatives have an important democratic function in planning decisions. However, their powers under the legislation were confined to proper planning and sustainable development and had to be exercised consistently with environmental assessment requirements.
The court found that substantial material before the councillors had identified possible effects on Adare’s historic character, the River Maigue, architectural and cultural heritage and a designated conservation area. Despite this, the September resolution did not itself state planning reasons for the proposed changes, and the meeting showed no meaningful consideration of the identified environmental issues.
The judge held that a County Manager was required to implement only lawful council directions and could disregard an invalid resolution without first obtaining a court order.
The resolution was therefore not a valid and effective intervention under the Planning and Development Act. The applicants were refused judicial review relief, leaving the agricultural zoning position intact.