Lack of resources in councils to prepare local plans cannot excuse a local authority’s statutory duty to do so, the Supreme Court has ruled.
The only circumstances whereby local authorities can be excused from their constitutional duty to comply with their statutory obligations is “in cases of impossibility or some other wholly exceptional circumstances”, the court said.
This exception did not apply in relation to Meath County Council’s failure to commence a local area plan (LAP) for the east of the county, it said.
Mr Justice Séamus Woulfe was giving a judgment, on behalf of a five-judge Supreme Court, allowing 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 areas covered are Laytown, Bettystown, Mornington and Donacarney.
READ MORE
The previous east Meath LAP was adopted in July 2014, and expired in October 2020. Commencement of the next six-year plan is required to take place under the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Meath County Council told the organisation that there were other, higher priority strategy plans that needed to be prepared.
It also said east Meath was in ninth place in terms of hierarchy and ranked behind the overall county plan as well as towns such as Navan and Maynooth as well as south Drogheda.
It also pleaded lack of resources, including the loss of experienced staff and the failure of recruitment.
As there was no commitment to commence the east Meath LAP, Protect East Meath brought High Court proceedings seeking an order that the council do so. It was claimed there was no provision under law making LAP preparation contingent on availability of resources.
In March last year, the High Court’s Mr Justice David Nolan said an order directing a body to do something (order of mandamus) was discretionary for the court.
He said it would be unjust for the court to order the preparation of an LAP for one specific part of Meath, to the exclusion of the rest of the county, thereby dictating its own settlement hierarchy.
He also accepted that the matters such as lack of council resources amounted to exceptional circumstances as has been provided for in previous case law.
Protect East Meath appealed that decision to the Supreme Court. The council opposed the appeal.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Woulfe said the “impossibility” (to do something) exception laid down in a previous case whereby the council could not discharge its statutory function did not apply in this case.
He was satisfied the council cannot point to exceptional circumstances in this case and he allowed the appeal.
However, he said before making final orders he wanted submissions from the parties on a recent legislative development as it might making an order of mandamus futile or inappropriate.
This was the repeal on December 31st of chapter two of the Planning and Development Act 2000, which deals with the making of local plans by councils.
