Ryan -v- Meath County Council [2016] IEHC 754 (21 December 2016)

Ryan -v- Meath County Council [2016] IEHC 754 (21 December 2016)

The Council correctly interpreted section 20(3)(q) of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2014, followed statutory procedures, and did not act in breach of fair procedures or unlawfully fetter its discretion. The applicant's lands did not have the benefit of extant planning permission for multiple unit residential developments and were properly re-zoned following evidence-based evaluation. The applicant's challenge was brought out of time and without leave.

Citation
[2016] IEHC 754
Parties
Applicant: Michael Ryan; Respondent: Meath County Council; Notice Party: Joseph Connolly
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
21 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Local Area Plans, Land Use Zoning, Planning Permission, Fair Procedures, Statutory Interpretation
Planning Law Administrative Law Local Area Plans Land Use Zoning Planning Permission Fair Procedures Statutory Interpretation

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Ryan

Applicant

Meath County Council

Respondent

Joseph Connolly

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Meath County Council erred in law in interpreting section 20(3)(q) of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2014 as prohibiting amendment to the land use zoning objective for the applicant's lands.
  2. 2 Whether the Council acted in breach of fair procedures and unlawfully fettered its discretion in adopting the East Meath Local Area Plan 2014-2020.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's lands had the benefit of extant planning permission for multiple unit residential developments.

Ratio Decidendi

The Council correctly interpreted section 20(3)(q) of the Planning and Development Act 2000-2014, followed statutory procedures, and did not act in breach of fair procedures or unlawfully fetter its discretion. The applicant's lands did not have the benefit of extant planning permission for multiple unit residential developments and were properly re-zoned following evidence-based evaluation. The applicant's challenge was brought out of time and without leave.

Court Disposition

Application refused