The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal by McGarrell Reilly Homes Limited and Alcove Ireland Eight Limited challenging Meath County Council’s zoning of four sites in the 2021-2027 Meath County Development Plan.
In a judgment delivered on 21 December 2023, the Court upheld the High Court decision. It found that the Council had given adequate planning reasons for its decisions and was not required to prepare an infrastructure assessment report in the circumstances of the case.
The sites comprise 27.6 hectares at Kilcock and three parcels at Stamullen: Crowe’s lands, Silverstream and Haran’s lands. Under the previous plan, all four had been designated for residential use after 2019. The new plan places the Kilcock site in the A2 Residential (Phase II) Post-2027 category. At Stamullen, Crowe’s lands were zoned G1 Community Infrastructure, Silverstream was zoned RA Rural Lands, and Haran’s lands were zoned E3 Warehouse and Distribution.
The companies argued that the 2014 plan variation had created a prior commitment to residential zoning after 2019 and that the Council failed to comply with national and regional planning requirements, including by not preparing an infrastructure report. They also challenged the reasons given for changing the sites’ zoning. The Council said it could change zoning when preparing a new plan and that the challenge disputed the merits of its planning decision.
The Court held that the Council could not legally bind future elected members to a zoning decision beyond the life of a development plan. The 2014 wording therefore did not create an enforceable promise or legitimate expectation. The Court also found that the three sites not available for residential development during the earlier plan did not count as zoned land for the relevant National Planning Framework and Regional Spatial and Economic Strategy requirements.
Haran’s lands were designated for warehousing in the current plan. The Court said an infrastructure report could have been required if that zoning required investment in service infrastructure, but the companies had not produced evidence that it did. The judgment noted the Council’s stated reasons, including limited water and wastewater capacity and the availability of other sites it considered more suitable for housing.
The Court found the Council’s reasons for the four zoning decisions rational and sufficient, including its explanation that the earlier designation did not have to carry forward into the new plan. It also rejected the view that the companies had to challenge the entire county development plan: they could challenge the provisions affecting their own lands. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court decision in place.