The High Court has refused a farmer’s challenge to the Industrial Development Agency’s decision to compulsorily acquire his 72-acre farm and family home at Hedsor House in Blakestown, Maynooth, County Kildare.
In a judgment delivered on 19 September 2013, Mr Justice Hedigan dismissed all grounds in the judicial review application. The farmer had sought to quash the IDA’s decision of 23 November 2012 and claimed declaratory relief and damages, arguing that the proposed acquisition exceeded the agency’s powers and breached constitutional and European Convention rights.
The land is beside Carton Demesne and the Rye Valley candidate Special Area of Conservation. Hedsor House, described in the judgment as a protected structure dating to about 1760, is the applicant’s family home. The IDA wanted the land to provide or facilitate sites for advanced manufacturing. It argued that it could acquire land for a future industrial use without having identified a particular company or project.
The judge interpreted section 16 of the Industrial Development Act 1986 as allowing acquisition where the IDA considers that industrial development is likely to result from acquiring a site. He held that the provision did not require a specific enterprise to have been identified. He also found there was ample relevant material before the IDA Board, including evidence and submissions from an inquiry, to support its decision. The court therefore would not intervene on the applicant’s challenge to the evidence or site assessment.
The applicant also argued that the IDA’s chair’s connection with the consultancy involved in site selection gave rise to objective bias, and that the Board had not given adequate reasons. The judge rejected both grounds, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias on the circumstances set out in the judgment and no demonstrated prejudice from the form of the decision.
On the constitutional challenge, the court treated the acquisition decision as administrative rather than judicial and held that the absence of an independent body with power to confirm or overturn it did not make the legislation unconstitutional. The judge also considered whether the acquisition was proportionate, including its effect on the applicant’s property and home, and concluded it was proportionate to the stated public objective of encouraging industrial development.
The judgment noted that the IDA’s decision contemplated an arrangement to defer taking Hedsor House and allow the occupant to remain for a transitional period to be agreed. The court did not set the terms or duration of such an arrangement. It refused the relief sought; the judgment does not itself specify a possession date.