The High Court ordered Dublin City Council’s elected members to reconsider zoning for lands formerly designated Z15 in the Dublin City Development Plan 2011–2017, after an earlier judgment quashed the relevant zoning provisions. The court did not decide what zoning should replace them.
In this supplemental judgment, delivered on 27 June 2012, Mr Justice Clarke settled the form of the orders following his main judgment of 27 April. He ordered certiorari quashing both the Council’s 24 November 2010 decision to adopt the plan, insofar as it included Z15 zoning, and the corresponding parts of the plan itself. The deletions were to be set out in a schedule, including a limited deletion from paragraph 15.2. The court retained the paragraph’s remaining description of resource-land needs as a planning challenge.
The court declared that the applicants’ lands described as Z15 in the adopted plan had no zoning as a result of the orders, unless and until the Council adopted changes through the process specified in the judgment. It rejected the applicants’ proposed direction to use the statutory development-plan variation procedure. That procedure was already available to the Council and would not achieve the purpose of remitting the matter to the adoption process.
Instead, the judgment set out three stages. The elected members were to meet as soon as practicable and adopt a proposal for zoning the former Z15 lands, with reasons. The proposal was then to be made available for six weeks of public consultation. After consultation, the Council Manager was to report on submissions within three weeks of the closing date, and the elected members were to meet again to consider the report and decide on the new provisions.
The court left the choice of zoning to the elected members. It said they could consider a zoning resembling Z15, another existing zoning, or different solutions for different lands, provided the process was lawful and adequate reasons were given. Two elements quashed for irrationality—provisions concerning social and affordable housing and the absence of potential material variation motions—could not be reproduced. The directed process was limited to changes necessitated by the de-zoning; other plan changes would require the ordinary statutory variation procedure. Material amendments would trigger the relevant statutory procedures.
On costs, the Council accepted that the applicants had succeeded in significant part. The court awarded them their costs, subject to a €15,000 deduction inclusive of VAT for the unsuccessful constitutional claim under Article 44. The judgment records this deduction but does not state a final total.