Raggett v Athy Urban District Council
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Miss. Justice Carroll |
| Judgment Date | 04 June 1999 |
| Neutral Citation | [1999] IEHC 174 |
| Docket Number | [1999 No. 206 JR],No. 206/1999 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 04 June 1999 |
[1999] IEHC 174
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S21A
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S21A(3)(b)
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S19
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S20
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S21
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S37
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S37(1)
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S37(2)
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S37(3)
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S37(4)(a)
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S37(5)
INTERPRETATION ACT 1937 S11
KEOGH V GALWAY CORP 1995 3 IR 457 1995 1 ILRM 141
LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S37(4)(b)
Synopsis
Planning
Draft development plan; amendment; whether respondent must take into consideration submissions which criticise proposed amendment; whether respondent must also take into account submissions which propose further amendment; whether amendment to draft plan can take place once only; s. 21A Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963.
Held: Planning authority have to take into account all representations including those which suggest amendments did not go far enough; draft plan can be amended more than once
Ragget v Athy UDC - High Court: Carroll J. - 04/06/1999 - [2000] 1 IR 469 - [2000] 1 ILRM 375
The planning authority had the power and was obliged to consider all submissions relating to an amended draft development plan, including submissions which went beyond the amendments and which proposed fundamental alterations to the plan. The respondent was obliged to consider all of the applicant's submissions, including the submissions which suggested further amendments to the development plan. The High Court so held in deciding the issues between the parties in lieu of an application for Judicial Review.
Judgment of Miss. Justice Carrolldelivered on the 4th day of June,1999.
The Applicant, with the intention of applying for Judicial Review with injunctive relief apparently on a quia timet basis, obtained an interim injunction on 3 1st May, 1999 restraining the Respondents until alter Thursday, 2nd (sic.) June, 1999 from the adoption of the draft development plan for Athy without giving due consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the Applicant in writing on 25th May,1999.
The matter came before me on its return date. Application had not then been made for Judicial Review and I agreed to hear the matter on the undertaking to apply for judicial review within 7 days. The parties agreed that in lieu of hearing an application for an interlocutory injunction. I would decide issues arising in the matter as set out on an issue paper dated 3rd June, 1999.
This provided as follows:-
2 "(1) On 1 8th December, 1998, the Respondent published a draft development plan for the urban district of Athy, Co. Kildare pursuant to the provisions of Section 19 and following, of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, as amended.
(2) Prior and subsequent to the said publication, the Applicant made written submissions to the Respondent in respect of the said development plan, m or about the 20th day of November, 1998 and the 30th day of March, 1999 respectively, not an immediate concern to the issue herein. Many other submissions were also received by the Respondent after publication of the draft development plan.
(3) On 27th April, 1999, the Respondent published proposed amendments to the draft development plan in Iris Oifigiuil inviting submissions in respect thereof pursuant to Section 21A of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act. 1963.
(4) On 24th May, 1999, following expressions of intent, the Applicant made further submissions to the Respondent expressed to be in respect of the said proposed amendment to the draft developmentplan.
The Respondent disputes the Applicant's entitlement to make such submissions as done on 25th May, 1999:-
(1) Maintaining that the said submission does not relate to the amendment published on 27th April, 1999 and that the Respondent lacks any statutory power to make any further material amendment to the draft development plan, and thereby declines to entertain the Applicant'ssubmissions.
(2) The Applicant maintains that the Respondent has both the power and duty to entertain the said submission in relation to the said proposed amendment, under the provisions of Section 21A of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963.
In determination of the said dispute, the Applicant and Respondent agreed that the following matters be respectfully submitted for the decision of this Honourable Court:-
(1) Is the Applicant's written submission of 25th May, 1999 in respect of the said proposed amendment of the draft development plan published by the Respondent on 27th April, 1999 within the meaning ofSection21A(3)(b) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963?
(2) Is the Respondent obliged by the determination of the foregoing issue or otherwise under Section 21A of the said Act to entertain the Applicant's said submission?
(3) Is the Respondent empowered by the provisions of Sections 19, 20, 21 and 21A of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963to propose further amendments, material or otherwise, to the draft development plan in response to the Applicant's said submissions?
(4) Costs.
The following documents are appended to this issue paper in respect of the matters to be determined herein:-
(a) copy Sections 19, 20, 21 and 21A of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963;
(b) copy advertisement in Iris Oifigiuil, 27th April, 1999;
(c) copy of proposed amendment of Draft Development Plan as referred to by advertisement aforesaid; and
(d) copy written submissions of Applicant 25th May,1999."
The Affidavit of Mr. Joseph Fitzpatrick, solicitor for the Applicant, and Mr. Thomas Maddock, Town Clerk to the Respondent were opened tome.
Mr. Fitzpatrick states that he was told by letter dated 25th May, 1999 from Mr. Maddock that the Applicant's submission dated 24th May, 1999 would be placed before the forthcoming meeting of the Respondent on 31st May, 1999 but that the Respondent was of opinion that a further amendment of the development plan to cater for the Applicant's submission could not be legally effected. He was further told by Mr. Maddock on 26th May, 1999 that the Respondent could not adopt the Applicant's submission as it would constitute a material alteration of the development plan and that there were no procedures in being to allow for these to be done or to be adopted.
Mr. Maddock states in his Affidavit that in so far as the Applicant's submissions relate to the amendments of the draft development plan, it is accepted that there is an obligation for the Respondent to take all such representations into consideration before arriving at a decision. But the Respondents do not accept the submissions in so far as they relate to the inclusion of lands at Ardrew, Athy for zoning as submissions in accordance with Section 21A. He states the meeting of 31st May stands adjourned until after the result of this application. He further says it is the intention of the Respondent to fully consider the representations made by the Applicant in so far as they relate to the amendments of the draft development plan when the meetingreconvenes.
In the original draft development plan, there was no provision for rezoning for development for housing. In the amended draft plan, the Respondent proposed the inclusion of 150 acres for the development of new residential areas. This was one of 10 proposed amendments to the draft development plan.
The Applicant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial