McNicholas & anor -v- Mayo County Council & anor [2017] IESC 37 (01 June 2017)

McNicholas & anor -v- Mayo County Council & anor [2017] IESC 37 (01 June 2017)

The Supreme Court held that the accommodation road was lawfully authorised by the decision of An Bord Pleanála, as the relevant drawing was expressly incorporated into the planning approval. The plaintiffs did not challenge the planning decision by judicial review and cannot now do so in these proceedings. The suitability of the access and any compensation for deficiencies are matters for arbitration, not for declaratory or injunctive relief. No legitimate expectation arose that could override the statutory planning process.

Citation
[2017] IESC 37
Parties
Plaintiffs/appellants: Peter McNicholas and Nancy McNicholas; Defendant/respondent: Mayo County Council; Defendant/respondent: SIAC Wills JV Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
01 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Compulsory Purchase Order, Planning Permission, Legitimate Expectation, Environmental Impact Statement, Access to Property, Judicial Review, Modification of Planning Approval
Administrative Law Planning and Environmental Law Compulsory Purchase Compulsory Purchase Order Planning Permission Legitimate Expectation Environmental Impact Statement Access to Property +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter McNicholas and Nancy McNicholas

Plaintiffs/appellants

Mayo County Council

Defendant/respondent

SIAC Wills JV Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal and Cross Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accommodation road constructed was authorised by the decision of An Bord Pleanála
  2. 2 Whether the access provided constituted 'suitable alternative access' as required by the Roads Act 1993
  3. 3 Whether the planning process or mitigation measures in the EIS were lawfully complied with

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the accommodation road was lawfully authorised by the decision of An Bord Pleanála, as the relevant drawing was expressly incorporated into the planning approval. The plaintiffs did not challenge the planning decision by judicial review and cannot now do so in these proceedings. The suitability of the access and any compensation for deficiencies are matters for arbitration, not for declaratory or injunctive relief. No legitimate expectation arose that could override the statutory planning process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; cross-appeal allowed

Orders

  • Refused declarations and injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs/appellants
  • Confirmed that the access road as constructed was authorised by planning approval