The Gazette 1982

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE Vol. 76 No. 3

April 1982

Comment...

In this i s s u e . . . .

• • • the Pine Valley Case T HE "knock-on" effects of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Pine Valley case may well be far-reaching. It will be recalled that in that case the Court held that a planning permission granted by the Minister for the Environment on an appeal from a refusal of permission by a planning authority, where the development sought constituted a material contravention of a Development Plan, was a nullity. It is believed that there is a large number of ministerial permissions of this nature in existence, some of them affecting very substantial areas of residential housing. It appears that some planning authorities, in the course of reviewing their Development Plans in accordance with their statutory obligation, had decided to alter the zoning of certain lands, e.g. from agricultural to residential and, on receipt of an application for permission for development for residential purposes of parts of those lands, instead of adopting the procedure provided for under the Planning Acts of advertising their intention of making a variation in the Development Plan in order to enable permission to be granted for the development, they simply refused the permission, believing that the applicant could obtain a permission from the Minister on appeal. It is understood that, in a number of cases, the planning authorities did not actively oppose the applications on appeal which, of course, was perfectly consistent with their intention of altering the zoning. As a result, it seems likely that there must now be in existence a large number of residential properties constructed under ministerial permissions, which following the Supreme Court's decision, are nullities. As soon as the judgment became available and the extent of its significance became clear, the Law Society wrote to the Taoiseach and to the Minister for the Environment drawing attention to the widespread effects of the decision and to the particular effect which it would have on the titles of people who had bought houses built under such permissions. The Society is also seeking the introduction of legislation to remedy the situation. While there may be some reservations about the propriety of introducing legislation which will, in ettect, nullity a decision of the Supreme Court, it is suggested that in the particular circumstances unreasonable hardship must result from failure to remove the serious "blot" on the titles to properties purchased in good faith by people relying on the apparent validity ofministerial permissions. • 51

Comment

51

The Application of the 'Peculiar Knowledge' principle in Irish Criminal Law

53 60 61 61 61

Law in School Curricula Conveyancing Notes

Solicitors Accounts Regulations Law Society Closes Practice The Training of Advocates in the Netherlands

63 64 64 64 65 69 70

Court Fees Increased Matters of Concern

Practice Note

Gammell v. Wilson & Ors — A further Commentary

Book Review

Professional Information

Executive Editor: Mary Buckley Editorial Board: Charles R. M. Meredith, Chairman John F. Buckley Gary Byrne William Earley Michael V. O'Mahony Maxwell Sweeney Advertising: Liam Ó hOisin, Telephone 305236 The views expressed in this publication, save where other-wise indicated, are the views of the contributors and not necessarily the views of the Council of the Society. Published at Blackhall Place, Dublin 7.