The High Court has refused Michael Ryan’s application for orders challenging the removal of residential zoning from Phases 3 and 4 of his lands in the East Meath Local Area Plan 2014–2020.
Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered judgment on 21 December 2016 in proceedings brought against Meath County Council, with Joseph Connolly as notice party. The court declined all relief sought, including an order quashing the zoning provisions and sending them back to the Council for reconsideration.
Mr Ryan owns about 20 hectares at Donacarney Little, Mornington, which had residential zoning under the 2005 local area plan. In 2008, An Bord Pleanála granted permission for 345 homes in Phases 1 and 2, as well as drainage, water supply and a distributor road serving the wider site. The permission expressly excluded housing and local access roads in Phases 3 and 4. A later application for 109 homes in those phases was refused by the Council, with the refusal upheld by the Board in April 2015.
During preparation of the 2014 plan, the Council initially treated all four phases as covered by the earlier permission. After a submission from Mr Connolly identified the restriction, the Council evaluated Phases 3 and 4 for residential zoning. It concluded that other land was more suitable for the 20 residential units available in the plan and proposed removing the residential zoning from those phases. The elected members adopted the plan after considering the proposed changes and submissions.
Mr Ryan argued that the permission and related infrastructure covered the full site, and that the Council had wrongly treated Phases 3 and 4 as lacking extant permission. The judge rejected that interpretation: permission for infrastructure did not amount to permission for housing where the condition expressly barred development of those phases under that grant. The court also found that the Council’s members were free to adopt all, some or none of the proposed alterations; the evidence did not show that their discretion was unlawfully restricted or that improper motives influenced their decision.
The court separately held that the planning-permission challenge had been raised too late. Although the judicial review began in August 2014, the argument that Phases 3 and 4 had extant residential permission was not advanced until revised legal submissions in December 2015. No leave had been granted to bring that challenge out of time.
The judgment therefore refused the requested reliefs. It did not quash or remit the zoning provisions.