The High Court has refused Devils Glen Equestrian Centre Limited’s application for judicial review of a Wicklow County Council enforcement notice concerning an all-weather horse training track at its Ashford, Co Wicklow site. The court did not decide whether the track was exempt from planning permission.
The notice, issued on 16 June 2009, required the company to stop work and use of all features of the gallops until the development obtained planning permission. The company had built the facility in 2009 after receiving advice that permission was not required. It argued that the track qualified for an exemption covering unfenced areas used to exercise or train horses, with drainage or a soft all-weather surface.
The council’s warning letter said the approximately 2,000-metre facility looked more like a race or exercise track than an enclosed paddock arena. It also raised concerns about the track’s surface, the scale of the works, an ancillary parking and horse assembly area, potential traffic effects and possible intensification of the site’s use. The council considered the development unauthorised and issued the enforcement notice.
The company argued that the council had applied the wrong legal test and relied on irrelevant or speculative considerations. It said the track’s final surface was soft material, and that tarmacadam identified by an inspector was part of the drainage base rather than the finished surface. The judge accepted that the inspector had been mistaken about the surface. He described the council’s reference to metal railings, which were plastic, as trivial, and said the surface error was only one of several grounds behind the notice.
The court also considered a planning-permission condition controlling traffic movement at the site. The judge said the track was in direct contravention of that condition and rejected the company’s argument that the council could not rely on traffic concerns that became clear after the warning letters. He said the potential traffic hazard had to be addressed before an accident occurred.
The judge held that the company’s challenge principally asked the court to determine whether the development was exempt. That question could be pursued through a declaration under section 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The company had not used that route and gave no satisfactory explanation for not doing so. The judge said judicial review was generally not the proper forum to determine the technical exemption question where the statutory procedure was available.
The court refused the relief sought. It did not rule on whether the gallops were exempt, and the enforcement notice was not set aside.