The High Court has directed that a challenge by five landowning companies to parts of the Galway County Development Plan 2022–2028 be dismissed unless a contrary written legal submission is delivered within 14 days. The court extended time for bringing the case and made no order as to costs. The matter was listed for 18 November 2024 to confirm the order.
The companies sought to quash the council’s adoption of the plan insofar as it affected lands at Maigh Cuilinn, An Spidéal and Céibh an tSrutháin near An Ceathrú Rua. Their grounds included claims that the chief executive’s October 2021 report inadequately summarised submissions about proposed residential zoning at Maigh Cuilinn and An Spidéal; that elected members gave inadequate reasons for zoning the Sruthán Quay site as open space; and that delayed access to meeting minutes and agendas impaired fair procedures and public participation.
The council opposed the challenge. The judge held that the planning law did not require submissions to be summarised individually or point by point. The report had treated the companies’ submissions across several sections, and the elected members could access the full submissions and had discussed issues at workshops. The court found no breach in the chief executive’s summaries. It also said that, even if there had been a shortcoming, the companies had not tried at the time to draw the alleged omissions to members’ attention.
On the Sruthán Quay zoning, the judge found that the motion passed by councillors on 12 January 2022 gave a sufficient planning reason: the site was described as having high scenic amenity and historical significance, and as suitable for public leisure, tourism and community use. The members later adopted the plan with that material alteration.
The judge said the companies sought minutes before they had been formally approved, so they did not yet exist as minutes. They were approved after the consultation period on material alterations had closed. The court found no demonstrated breach of fair procedures that justified quashing the plan. It noted shortcomings in information access, including an incorrect response to an information request and blank public web pages, but said these did not warrant the requested relief.
The order extended the time limit for the proceedings. Dismissal was conditional on no contrary written legal submission being delivered within 14 days; the court also directed the parties to arrange for the Minister to be notified of the outcome within seven days.