A legal action brought by Meath County Council arising from An Bord Pleanála's failure to require that some 84 homes in a planned 420 unit housing scheme outside Navan be allocated to the council for social and affordable housing, has been settled.
Mr Justice Peter Kelly, sitting in the Commercial Court yesterday, was told the matter, which was admitted to the Commercial Court list of the High Court last July, had been resolved and he made an order dismissing the proceedings on consent of the sides.
It is understood the matter was settled on the basis of an agreement reached between the council and the developers, Taggart Homes Ireland Ltd and J&T Developments Ireland Ltd. As part of the settlement, the council is to pay the companies' costs.
Last July, Mr Justice Kelly was told An Bord Pleanála was not opposing the council's application to quash its grant of permission for the scheme because of the failure to incorporate the social housing requirement which failure, the board said, was due to an administrative error. However, the council's action was being resisted by Taggart Homes Ireland Ltd, owner of the lands in question, the court heard.
The court heard that if the council had been allocated some 20 per cent of the homes, as required by Part V of the Local Government Planning and Development Act 2000, the value of those homes would be up to €10 million.
The council had refused to grant permission for the proposed development of some 425 residential units, mainly two storey houses, at Johnstown about 2.5km (1.5 miles) southeast of Navan in October 2004 after finding the development would be premature to the upgrading of sewage facilities in the area.
That refusal was appealed to An Bord Pleanála which in May 2005 granted permission subject to certain conditions. Those conditions did not include a requirement that 20 per cent of the units be allocated to the council for social housing or alternatively land or alternatively a financial contribution.
The council claimed the effect of that omission was that it would be unable to enforce Part V in relation to the proposed development.