The High Court refused Talbotgrange Homes Limited’s application for leave to seek judicial review of a ministerial direction that led to residential zoning being removed from the company’s lands at Townspark, Durrow, and a related variation of the Laois County Development Plan.
In a judgment delivered on 2 December 2009, Mr Justice McCarthy found that the company had an arguable case that the direction did not explain why its particular lands were selected for de-zoning. He also found an arguable issue about whether advance public notice or consultation was required. But he ruled that the company had not shown good reason to extend the time for bringing the proceedings.
The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government issued the direction on 24 October 2006 under section 31 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. It required Laois County Council to remove specified zonings, including new development zonings in Durrow and Castletown. The stated reasons included that the county plan provided for more residentially zoned land than projected population growth warranted.
The council’s county manager made a variation in line with the direction on 31 January 2007. Talbotgrange, which bought the lands in April 2006, said it was not notified or consulted. Its planning consultant said he learned of the direction in March 2007. The company applied for permission to build 55 homes on the lands that month; the council refused the application in May, citing, among other reasons, the area’s designation as a special area of development control.
The company began judicial review proceedings on 1 June 2007, seeking to quash both decisions and an extension of time. It argued that the direction lacked adequate reasons, was irrational and had been made without fair procedures. The Minister and council disputed those claims. The council maintained it had been required to implement the direction and had no discretion to depart from it.
The judge said the company had sufficient interest as the owner of lands affected by the variation. He considered the direction’s general reasons adequate to explain why development zonings in Durrow were being reduced, but found they did not explain why the company’s lands were selected over other zoned lands. He also found an arguable case on that point and on the absence of prior constructive public notice. These were preliminary leave-stage assessments, not final findings that the decisions were invalid.
On delay, the court noted that the direction became a public document when laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas on 2 November 2006. The company then waited more than two months after learning of it in March 2007 to issue proceedings, and the judge found no satisfactory explanation for the delay after documents arrived in early May. He concluded that the company had not justified extending the relevant time limits. The application for leave was refused; the court did not quash either decision.