A legal action by a priest's housekeeper arising from plans by an English company for a substantial housing development at Lough Muckno, Co Monaghan, opened in the High Court yesterday.
Ms Elizabeth Hughes, of Henry Street, Castleblayney, is seeking orders preventing An Bord Pleanala determining three appeals against the revocation by Castleblayney Urban District Council of planning permission for the development on the 990acre Lough Muckno estate, near Castleblayney.
In court yesterday, Mr Diarmaid McGuinness SC, for Ms Hughes, said the proposed development had been described as a "holiday village" of 51 houses and 67 car-parking spaces but now it appeared that each house would be sold individually for residential purposes.
At an earlier hearing, Ms Hughes said the Lough Muckno estate was purchased by Monaghan County Council from a quarrying company in 1981 for about £300,000. She claimed the lands were acquired with a view to being laid out as a public park and the park was opened in 1982.
But in April 1996 the council leased the park to an English property development company, Harinbrook Properties Ltd, which obtained planning permission from Castleblayney UDC on April 14th, 1997, for a housing development there. The planning application was made with the consent of the council.
Yesterday, Mr McGuinness said it came to the attention of Castleblayney UDC and the people of the town that the intention was not to run the development as a holiday village but to sell off the houses individually as residential homes. Castleblayney UDC subsequently revoked that permission, despite warnings from the county manager, at a meeting on October 28th, 1997.
Three notices revoking the permission were issued on behalf of Castleblayney UDC by the county manager, who was also manager of Castleblayney UDC.
Mr McGuinness maintained none of the three revocation notices - issued on October 29th, 1997, November 4th, 1997 and January 2nd, 1998 - was validly issued.
His client, Mrs Hughes, supported the revocation of the planning permission but was challenging the jurisdiction of the board to hear three appeals - two by Monaghan County Council and one by Harinbrook - against that revocation. If she succeeded in stopping the board from hearing the appeals on grounds that the revocation procedure was defective, the effect would be that the Castleblayney UDC decision revoking the permission was valid, he argued.
The hearing continues today before Mr Justice Geoghegan.