The High Court has dismissed a claim that Meath County Council failed to conduct a valid strategic environmental assessment when adopting its county development plan, while adjourning a separate challenge to residential zoning in Drogheda’s southern environs so affected parties could be notified.
Protect East Meath Limited challenged the zoning of lands on map 35A of the Meath County Development Plan 2022–2027. It sought to quash the plan’s removal of a previous phasing arrangement and also sought a declaration that the council’s SEA process was invalid.
The applicant argued that the council had not adequately considered its submissions, including an expert report on traffic impacts, and had failed to assess alternatives and provide adequate monitoring. The judge rejected the submission-related complaint, finding that the applicant’s submission was referred to and answered in the Chief Executive’s report and that the legal requirements had been met.
On alternatives and monitoring, the judgment said the applicant’s pleaded arguments did not establish a basis to depart from the Court of Appeal’s approach in Friends of the Irish Environment v Government of Ireland. The judge said the final SEA material addressed monitoring and concluded there was no basis for the requested relief on those grounds. The court dismissed the claim for a declaration concerning the SEA.
The court did not decide the separate certiorari claim over the zoning. The judgment records that the applicant had not served landowners whose interests could be directly affected, including owners of nine parcels, and had not joined Louth County Council despite raising a concern about cooperation on a joint plan. The judge said fair procedures required notice before the court considered relief affecting those landowners.
On 21 June 2022, the court adjourned the certiorari claim to 18 July and directed service of the proceedings on Louth County Council and relevant landowners, with newspaper notice where an affected owner’s address was unknown. The zoning challenge therefore remained unresolved in this judgment.