Ryan v Ireland

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: FINLAY C.J.
• Judgment Date: 16 February 1989
• Neutral Citation: 1988 WJSC-SC 1192
• Court: Supreme Court
• Docket Number: [1982 No. 3719P]
• Date: 16 February 1989

1988 WJSC-SC 1192

THE SUPREME COURT

Finlay C.J.

Henchy J.

Griffin J.

137/87

GRANGE DEVELOPMENTS LTD v. DUBLIN COUNTY COUNCIL

IN THE MATTER OF THE ACQUISITION OF LAND (ASSESSMENT OFCOMPENSATION) ACT 1919

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPERTY VALUES (ARBITRATION ANDAPPEALS ACT 1960

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT)ACTS 1963, 1976& 1982

AND IN THE MATTER OF GRANGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED AND THE COUNTYCOUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF DUBLIN

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL BY THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OFDUBLIN

BETWEEN

GRANGE DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Claimant/

Respondent

and

THE COUNTY COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF DUBLIN

Respondent/

Appellant

Citations:

GRANGE DEVELOPMENTS LTD V DUBLIN CO COUNCIL 1987 ILRM 245, 1986 IR 246

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S26(3)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 PART IV

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S26(2)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S19

Synopsis:

PLANNING

Permission

Refusal - Value of land - Reduction - Compensation - Exclusion - Validity - Undertaking to grant permission - Dublin County Development Plan, 1983 - Having failed in the High Court, the applicants succeeded in the Supreme Court in their claim that an undertaking given by the respondent planning authority on 19/1/83 did not preclude the applicants from receiving compensation for the reduction in the value of the applicants" land caused by the rejection by the Planning Board of the applicants" appeal from a refusal of the respondents to grant to the applicants permission to develop their land - The proceedings were resumed before the property arbitrator and on 31/7/86 the respondents produced a second undertaking, given by the county manager, in the following terms:- "I hereby undertake to grant permission for a residential development as indicated on map No. DP 86/79H subject to the provisions of Part VI of the Local Government (Planning & Development) Act, 1963, in the event of an application made in that behalf" - The arbitrator stated a second Case for the opinion of the High Court in which he posed several questions including (a) whether the undertaking dated 31/7/86 was a valid undertaking for the purposes of s. 55, sub-s. 2(b), of the Act of 1963 and (b) whether he must have regard to it in determining the reduction in value of the claimants" interest in their land in accordance with the provisions of the said section - Section 55, sub-s. 1, of the act of 1955 provides for compensation to be paid to an applicant for planning permission in certain circumstances where the value of his interest in his land has been reduced by reason of a decision of a planning authority to refuse to grant the applicant permission to develop his land - Section 55, sub-s. 2 (b), states that, in determining reduction of value for the purposes of the section, regard shall be had to any undertaking that may be given to grant permission to develop the land in the event of application being made under the Act of 1963 in that behalf - At the hearing of the second Case Stated, the respondents relied upon paragraph 3.1.10 of the Dublin County Development Plan, 1983, which states:- "In the event of a claim for compensation being made against the Council under Part VI of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Acts, 1963 and 1976, or any amendments thereof the planning authority may undertake, pursuant to section 55(2)(b) of the Acts, to grant permission for any development which is considered suitable and acceptable in all the circumstances of that particular case, any other provision of the development plan notwithstanding" - The second Case Stated was heard by Murphy J. who held (22/5/87) that paragraph 3.1.10 of the Plan of 1983 purported to confer on the respondent planning authority and, in particular, on its county manager the right to disregard the development plan and to re-write it in such a way as was thought suitable having regard to a particular claim to compensation; that the making of a development plan (and any variation thereof) was a reserved function by virtue of s. 19, sub-s. 7, of the Act of 1963; and that the terms of the said paragraph encroached upon that function and were illegal - The judge, accordingly, answered questions (a) and (b) in the negative - The respondents appealed against the order of the High Court - Held, in disallowing the appeal, that the answers given by the trial judge to the questions (a) and (b) were correct for the reasons stated by him in his judgment - ~Semble~: Even if the power purported to be given by the said paragraph 3.1.10 to the executive authority of th respondents had been given to the elected representatives of the respondents, there must be considerable doubt whether that power could be a valid provision of the development plan since the exercise of that power was inconsistent with ss. 19 and 26 of the Act of 1963 - Local Government (Planning & Development) Act, 1963. ss. 19, 26, 55, 57, - (137/87 - Supreme Court - 6/7/88) [1989] IR 314

|Grange developments v. Dublin county Council|

1 JUDGMENT delivered on the 6th day of July 1988by FINLAY C.J.[Nem. Diss]

2 This is an appeal brought by the County Council against the Order of the High Court dated the 26th March 1987, whereby Murphy J. answered a number of questions of law submitted to him by way of special case stated bythe Property Arbitrator, Mr. Sean M. McDermott, F.R.I.C.S., F.C.I. Arb. These questions arose out of an arbitration...