Re Viscount Securities Ltd

JurisdictionIreland
CourtHigh Court
JudgeFinlay P.
Judgment Date01 January 1978
Neutral Citation1976 WJSC-HC 1390
Docket Number1976/229 S.S.
Date01 January 1978

1976 WJSC-HC 1390

THE HIGH COURT

1976/229 S.S.
VISCOUNT SECURITIES LTD, IN RE
IN THE MATTER OF THE ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OFCOMPENSATION) ACT 1919
THE PROPERTY VALUES (ARBITRATION AND APPEALS) ACT 1960
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963
THE HOUSING ACT 1966
CLAIM OF VISCOUNT SECURITIES LIMITED
Special Case Stated
1

Judgment delivered 21.12.1976 Finlay P.

2

This is a special case stated by Owen McCarthy B.E. B.Sc. C.E.N.G. M.I.E.I. the Property Arbitrator duly nominated to act as Arbitrator between Viscount Securities Limited whom I will hereinafter call the Claimants and Dublin County Council whom I will hereinafter call the Planning Authority to determine the amount of compensation, if any, which should be paid by the Planning Authority to the Claimants pursuant to section 55 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963. The facts found on the case stated by the Arbitrator out of which the question for determination by this Court arises may be summarized asfollows.

3

The Claimants applied to the Planning Authority for permission to develop certain lands at Kingston Ballinteer Road, County Dublin the description of the development being the erection of 288 four bedroomed houses. In the planning application formthe Claimants answered query number 11 which was: "if application is in respect of a material change of user state

4

(a) the prevent use when last used and

5

(b) the proposed use"

6

as respectively "agricultural" and"residential".

7

By a decision dated the 16th of March 1973 the Planning Authority refused the application for permission upon the following grounds

8

1. That the site was located in an area which was soned in the development plan to provide for the further development of agriculture and that the development proposed would be in conflict with that objective and would not be in accordance with the proper planning and development of the area.

9

2. The public piped services were not available to serve theproposal.

10

3. That the proposed development would be premature by reason of the existing deficiency in the provision of water supply and sewagefacilities.

11

4. That the portion of the site was seriously affected by the southern cross route motorway.

12

Against that decision of the Planning Authority the Claimants appealed to the Minister and by a decision dated the 15th day of July 1974 the Minister refused planning permissionupon the grounds

13

1. That the site of the proposed development was located in an area in which it is the policy of the Planning Authority as expressed in their development plan to provide for the further development of agriculture and to provide for recreational open space and ancillary structures and that that objective was considered reasonable and the proposed housing development would be in conflict with it.

14

2. That portion of the site was seriously affected by land reservations required for the proposed southern cross routemotorway.

15

The Claimants then applied to the Arbitrator to determine the amount, if any, of compensation which should be paid to them by the Planning Authority pursuant to section 55 of the Local Government Planning and Development Act 1963which I will hereinafter call the Act of 1963 by reason of the said refusal of planning permission.

16

At the hearing before the Arbitrator the application for planning permission, the refusal, the appeal and its refusal were proved and it was established and not challenged by the Planning Authority that the value of the Claimant's fee simple interest in the land the subject matter of the application was reduced as a result of the decision of thePlanningAuthority and of the Minister on appeal. It was further established and agreed before the Arbitrator that at the date of the refusal of permission by the Planning Authority the land the subject matter of the application was used for the purposed of one private residence and for agriculture. Arising out of these facts the net question submitted to the Court for its opinion at the request of the Planning Authority was whether the Arbitrator was precluded from awarding compensation to the Claimants for the reduction in value pursuant to section 55 of the Act of 1963 by virtue of the provisions of sub section 1 (a) of section 56 of that Act.

17

Section 55 of the Act of 1963 provides that if on a claim made to the Planning Authority it is shown that as a result of a decision under Part IV of the Act involving a refusal of permission to develop land the value of an interest of any person existing in the land to which the decision relates is reduced such a person shall subject to the provisions of that part of the Act be entitled to be paid by the Planning Authority by way of compensation the amount of such reduction in value.

18

Section 56 1 (a) of the Act of 1963 provides as follows

19

"Compensation under section 55 of this Act shall not be payable (a) in respect of the refusal of permission for anydevelopment that consists of or includes the making of any material change in the use of any structures or other land."

20

By section 2 of the Act of 1963 use in relation to land does not include the use of the land for the carrying out of any works thereon and works includes any act or operation of construction, excavation, demolition, extension, alteration repair or renewal. By section 3 of the Act of 1963 development in the Act means save where the context otherwise requires the carrying out of any works on, in or under the land or the making of any material change in the use of any structures or other land.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
15 cases
  • Kildare County Council v Goode
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 18 May 1999
    ...this was both a "use development" and a "works development". 13Mr. Gallagher relied on the decision in In re Viscount SecuritiesLimited ( 112 ILTR 17). In that case, it was held by the High Court (Finlay P as he then was) that a developer who was carrying out an extensive residential devel......
  • Quinlan v Bord Pleanála & Dublin City Council
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 13 May 2009
    ...DISTRICT COUNCIL v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 1981 AC 578 1980 2 WLR 379 1980 1 AER 731 VISCOUNT SECURITIES LTD, IN RE 1978 112 ILTR 17 LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S55 KILDARE CO COUNCIL v GOODE CONCRETE 1999 2 IR 495 2000 1 ILRM 346 1999/15/4341 ASHBOURNE HOLDI......
  • Smyth & Smyth (plaintiffs) v Railway Procurement Agency & Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 March 2010
    ...ART 43 ALLEN v GULF OIL REFINING LTD 1981 1 AC 1001 829 MCMAHON & BINCHY IRISH LAW OF TORTS 3ED 2000 710 VISCOUNT SECURITIES, IN RE 1978 112 ILTR 17 FPH PROPERTIES SA v BORD PLEANALA 1987 IR 698 DODD STATUTORY INTEPRETATION IN IRELAND 2008 304 ELECTRICITY SUPPLY ACT 1927 S53(3) RSC O.60 C......
  • Re Eylewood Ltd and Others
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 5 March 2010
    ...INTERPRETATION IN IRELAND 2008 PAR 11.51 BYRNE v GREY 1988 IR 31 MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT 1977 S26(1) VISCOUNT SECURITIES LTD, IN RE 1978 112 ILTR 17 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT ACT 1963 S56(1)(A) COMPANIES (AMDT) ACT 1990 S22 COMPANIES (AMDT) ACT 1990 S22(1)(C) COMPANIES (AMDT) ACT 1990 S22(6) COM......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT