Dublin County Council, Monastra Developments Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Court | High Court |
| Judge | Miss Justice Carroll |
| Judgment Date | 31 January 1992 |
| Neutral Citation | 1992 WJSC-HC 838 |
| Docket Number | [1991 No. 266 S.S.],Record Number 266 S.S./1991 |
| Date | 31 January 1992 |
1992 WJSC-HC 838
THE HIGH COURT
AND
Citations:
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S55
ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION) ACT 1919 S2
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 SCHED II
DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V SHORTT 1983 ILRM 377
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S69
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 SCHED IV
Synopsis:
ARBITRATION
Arbitrator
Award - Delivery - Time - Postponement - Necessity - Determination of question of law - Determination pending in High Court - (1991/266 SS - Carroll J. - 31/1/92) - [1992] 1 I.R. 468
|Monastra Developments v. Dublin County Council|
DAMAGES
Assessment
Planning - Permission - Refusal - Compensation - Applicant's interest in land - Reduction in value of interest - Land in vicinity - Whether set apart for particular purpose - (1991/266 SS - Carroll J. - 31/1/92) - [1992] 1 I.R. 468
|Monastra Developments Ltd. v. Dublin County Council|
PLANNING
Development
Permission - Refusal - Compensation - Assessment - Method - Applicant's interest in land - Value - Reduction - Whether land in vicinity set apart for particular purpose - Arbitrator - Award - Time of delivery - Whether delivery to await determination of question of law - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, ss. 55, 68, 69 - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1890, ss. 3, 11 - (1991/266 SS - Carroll J. - 31/1/92) - [1992] 1 I.R. 468
|Monastra Developments Ltd. v. Dublin County Council|
Judgment of Miss Justice Carrolldelivered the 31st day of January 1992
This is a Case Stated by the Property Arbitrator concerning a claim for compensation under Section 55 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963("The 1963 Act") for refusal of permission to develop a plot of 3.37 acres at Foxrock County Dublin. The eastern part of the land is zoned "A" in the Dublin County Development Plan 1983. The objective for zone "A" is "to protect and improve residential amenity" and the permitted uses are "residential, private garage, open space, public services, education, church, cemeteries". The western section is zoned "F" for which the objective is stated "to preserve and provide for open space and recreational amenities" and permitted uses are"open space, public services, sports club, recreational buildings, cemeteries". The area zoned "F" of which this plot forms part is the area of the old Leopardstown Racecourse.
The Property Arbitrator asks firstly "Is the zoning "F" in the Dublin County Development Plan 1983 equivalent to a reservation for a particular purpose within the meaning of Rule 11 of the Statutory Rules for the Assessment of Compensation as set out at Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 as amended?"
Rule 11 which is one of the rules contained in the Fourth...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Redmond v an Bord Pleanála
...purpose, i.e. a form of spot zoning, than to a general zoning objective. ( cf. Monastra Developments Ltd v. Dublin County Council [1992] 1 I.R. 468). 70 Finally, it is necessary to address an argument made by the objector by reference to the treatment of institutional lands under the develo......