Meath Council will not be ordered to prepare LAP due to changes in legislation, Court rules
High Court Reporter
Meath County Council will not be ordered to prepare a local area plan (LAP) for part of the county, despite a Supreme Court finding that the local authorities’ lack of resources did not excuse its statutory obligation to prepare such a plan.
Due to recent changes in legislation, the court said on Thursday that the making of an order of mandamus – an order directing a body to do something – would be futile and inappropriate.
In January, a five-judge Supreme Court allowed an appeal by Protect East Meath Ltd, a non-profit environmental planning group, over the council’s failure to commence the LAP for East Meath.
The only circumstances whereby local authorities can be excused from their constitutional duty to comply with their statutory obligations are “in cases of impossibility or some other wholly exceptional circumstances”, the court said.
This exception did not apply to Meath County Council in this case, the court ruled.
A new standing order, which came into effect on December 31st last year after the hearing of Protect East Meath’s case, repealed chapter two of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which deals with the making of local plans by councils.
In its judgment, the court said its provisional view was that, in light of the development, it should not make an order for mandamus, as to do so would be futile and inappropriate.
The court invited the parties to make submissions on the implications of the standing order.
The local authority agreed with the provisional view of the court.
Protect East Meath argued that an order of mandamus should be made, notwithstanding the new legislation.
In a ruling on Thursday, the court said it appeared Protect East Meath now wanted an order compelling the council to prepare an Urban Area Plan, a type of plan provided for in the updated legislation.
The court said that the NGO did not seek this order in its case against the council. The court said there was no evidence before it that the council was in default in terms of preparing an Urban Area Plan.
The court said it was satisfied, given the changes in legislation, that making an order for mandamus would be futile and inappropriate.
The court said the NGO was entitled to an order for its legal costs.
