Dublin County Council v Shortt

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: O'HIGGINS C.J.
• Judgment Date: 13 May 1983
• Neutral Citation: 1983 WJSC-SC 1014
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 13 May 1983

1983 WJSC-SC 1014

THE SUPREME COURT

O'Higgins C.J.

Henchy J.

Hederman J.

18/82

SHORTT v. DUBLIN CO. COUNCIL

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF DUBLIN

Appellants

and

NORA TERESA SHORTT

Respondent

HIGH - 1981/334 SS - McMAHON - 21.12.81.

1 JUDGMENT delivered the 13th day of May 1983by O'HIGGINS C.J. [NEM DISS]

2 This appeal has been brought by the Appellants against the Judgment and Order of Mr. Justice McMahon in the High Court, whereby he answered certain questions raised in a Case Stated by the Property Arbitrator adjudicating on the question of compensation under the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919. The Appellants are referred to as "the acquiring authority" and they have acquired by Compulsory Purchase Order certain land lying between the Dodder River on the north and Firhouse Road on the south, in the County of Dublin. This land referred to in the case as the "subject land" was the property of the Respondent. The relevant facts upon which the four questions in the Case Stated are raised appear to be as follows. The subject landfalls into two parts, each of which is designated on the County Dublin Development Plan 1972, which plan was operative on the 10th November 1979. This was the date of the service of the Notice to Treat and, therefore, the critical date so far as the assessment of compensation is concerned. The larger portion of the land was designated "Q" on this plan which indicated an objective "to preserve an area of high amenity". The smaller portion is designated "T" which in the plan indicated an objective "to provide for recreational open space and ancillary structures". The land is situated in an area in which there has been extensive residential development and apparently represents an open undeveloped space left after housing development in the vicinity had concluded. If this were developed for housing there would be no difficulty in providing water supply nor would there be any difficulty in connecting foul water sewers from such a development to the Dodder Valley main sewer, nor in discharging surface water to the Dodder river. In fact, however, the main sewer, although then under 50 per centin use, was "pre-empted for future development on other lands". While it is not expressly stated in the case, there is an implication that it might not be capable of taking all the sewage involved in all such future development and, in addition, taking the sewage of a new development in the subject lands.

3 The first two questions raised in the case seek a decision as to whether the designation accorded to the subject lands amounts to a reservation for a particular purpose within Rule 11 of the Statutory Rules for the Assessment of Compensation. Rule 11 is one of the rules contained in the Fourth Schedule to the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963and inserted into Section 2 of the Acquisition of Land (Assessment of Compensation) Act 1919 by Section 69 of the 1963 Act. It provides as follows in relation to the assessment...