The High Court has blocked a plan by Fingal County Council to build a temporary halting site for Travellers after local residents claimed they were not consulted about the development.
Mr Justice McKechnie ruled the council had infringed its 1999 Area Development Plan by failing to consult local residents before moving heavy machinery to the site at Meakestown, Dubber Cross, Co Dublin, and spending more than £1 million on preparatory work.
He told Mr Hugh Mohan SC, counsel for Mr Derek Byrne and 14 other residents at Meakestown Cottages, the council had committed itself in the area plan to follow a policy of consultation with residents who would be affected by any developments.
"A development plan is a representation in solemn form, binding on all affected by it, that the planning authority will deal with its statutory functions strictly in accordance with the published plan without preference or favour, discrimination or prejudice, openly and transparently," he said.
He said the council had committed itself to follow a consultative procedure not only with the Travelling community but also with the local community.
Given that such a consultation process applied, it had to be real and meaningful and had to involve an opportunity being given to the local community to make representations and have their views taken into account prior to any decision being finalised. Otherwise it would be wholly superficial and of no value.
Mr Justice McKechnie said the county manager had raised an order on March 21st last reciting that discussions had taken place with the Travelling community and it was proposed to move into Meakestown.
He told Mr Pat Butler SC, for the local authority, that on May 3rd last in other High Court proceedings, the council had quite clearly indicated its intention to move 11 Traveller families to what it described as the new temporary halting site at Meakestown.
"There is no doubt, therefore, that by May 3rd last, and in all probability by March 21st last when the manager committed the council to this project, a decision had been made that the halting site was to be constructed at Meakestown," he said.
He had no doubt that the first contact of any quality that the Meakestown Cottages residents had from the council was on May 21 last.
"There was no question of an invitation to engage in meaningful discussions or consultation," Mr Justice McKechnie said.
It was beyond dispute that by March 21st a decision had been taken by the council that the development was to take place and he was satisfied that such brief engagement as took place between the council and the residents on May 21st could not in any way satisfy its commitment to consult given in its area plan.
He granted an injunction restraining the council from continuing with the Meakestown development without proper compliance with the consultative procedure.