The High Court has ruled that parts of Meath County Council’s development plan for housing in the southern environs of Drogheda were adopted unlawfully, and ordered a limited quashing of the plan’s A2 zoning provisions.
In a judgment delivered on 17 February 2023, Mr Justice Humphreys found that the council had not carried out the infrastructure assessment required by national planning policy before adopting the zoning. He also found no acceptable relationship between the population projection and the amount of land zoned for housing, saying the removal of phasing left developers to compete to secure permissions rather than the council setting a plan-led sequence.
The challenge was brought by Protect East Meath Limited against Meath County Council. Six companies were joined as notice parties. The judgment concerned the second module of the judicial review: a challenge seeking certiorari of parts of the Meath County Development Plan 2022–2027. In an earlier module, the court dismissed a separate claim concerning strategic environmental assessment. The fresh dismissal order for that claim was to be included in the final order.
The court’s certiorari order applies to specified maps and text, and to a figure in the plan’s housing table. It covers A2 lands in the southern environs that were formerly Phase II, but excludes land already zoned A2 Phase I under the previous plan. The order is limited to zoning for residential development and other uses for which an infrastructure assessment report would have been required. It does not quash the whole development plan or unrelated zoning objectives.
The court said the council could lawfully adopt a local area plan, joint urban area plan or development-plan variation consistent with the judgment. However, the certiorari order was not to be perfected until consequential issues were determined. In the meantime, an interlocutory stay was imposed on the affected A2 zoning and on current or future planning applications or appeals dependent on that zoning. The council was directed to notify An Bord Pleanála, and the case was to return for consideration of consequential issues, including implications for separate proceedings concerning the planning board.
The judge declined to quash Phase I lands because the applicant had asked the council to retain those zonings during the plan-making process. The judgment records that the council may select new A2 lands through a lawful process that addresses population projections and infrastructure assessment.