Coll v. Donegal County Concil [2005] IEHC 231 (7 July 2005)

Coll v. Donegal County Concil [2005] IEHC 231 (7 July 2005)

There is no statutory bar in s.73 of the Roads Act, 1993 to a local authority reconsidering and voting again on a proposal to extinguish a public right of way, even after a previous vote against extinguishment. The applicant's legitimate expectation is confined to the right to be consulted in accordance with...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2005] IEHC 231
Parties
Applicant: Kathleen Coll; Respondent: Donegal County Council; Notice Party: Liam Gillespie
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
07 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extinguishment of Public Right of Way, Planning Permission Extension, Legitimate Expectation, Standing in Judicial Review, Local Authority Powers
Administrative Law Planning Law Local Government Law Extinguishment of Public Right of Way Planning Permission Extension Legitimate Expectation Standing in Judicial Review Local Authority Powers

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathleen Coll

Applicant

Donegal County Council

Respondent

Liam Gillespie

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Donegal County Council could lawfully recommence the statutory procedure to extinguish a public right of way after a previous vote against extinguishment
  2. 2 Whether the extension of planning permission was lawful under s.42 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000
  3. 3 Whether the applicant had standing to challenge the extension of planning permission

Ratio Decidendi

There is no statutory bar in s.73 of the Roads Act, 1993 to a local authority reconsidering and voting again on a proposal to extinguish a public right of way, even after a previous vote against extinguishment. The applicant's legitimate expectation is confined to the right to be consulted in accordance with statutory procedures. The extension of planning permission was within the discretion of the planning authority and the applicant lacked standing to challenge it.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Reliefs sought by the applicant refused
  • No order quashing the Council's decisions