Judgment: 2002-07-31 · Court archive

Supreme Court upholds Louth council notice offering alternative hotel development at Ballymascanlon

Supreme Court ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Ballymac Designer Village Limited (Applicant)
What

Supreme Court upholds Louth council notice offering alternative hotel development at Ballymascanlon

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Ballymascanlon Roundabout
  • Dundalk
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Supreme Court disagreed. Mr Justice Fennelly held that section 13 required only an opinion that permission ought to be granted. It did not require the council to be in a position to grant that permission immediately or unconditionally.

The Supreme Court has upheld a Louth County Council notice proposing a hotel development as an alternative use for land near Ballymascanlon Roundabout, Dundalk, in a dispute arising from a £21.6 million planning compensation claim.

Ballymac Designer Village Limited had agreed to buy about 11.6 hectares at Aghaboys for £1.075 million and sought permission in 1998 for a factory outlet village with more than 100 shops, three fast-food restaurants and 1,600 parking spaces.

An Bord Pleanála refused permission in November 1999. One reason was that the development would materially contravene the Louth County Development Plan's provisions protecting certain roads from new or intensified access.

The company then claimed £21.6 million compensation from the council. Under section 13 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1990, a planning authority can interrupt such a compensation claim by identifying another development for which it considers permission ought to be granted.

Louth County Council issued such a notice in August 2000. It proposed a hotel of about 100 bedrooms with conference facilities for around 500 people. Both sides accepted that this development would also involve a material contravention of the development plan.

The High Court quashed the notice, holding that an alternative development could not validly be proposed where permission could not lawfully be granted without first changing or overriding the plan.

The Supreme Court disagreed. Mr Justice Fennelly held that section 13 required only an opinion that permission ought to be granted. It did not require the council to be in a position to grant that permission immediately or unconditionally.

A separate statutory material-contravention procedure existed precisely to allow exceptions to a development plan after public notice, consideration of objections and approval by elected members.

The ruling therefore restored the council's section 13 notice. It did not grant planning permission for the hotel or determine the amount of compensation ultimately payable.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review