€149k legal bill and counting - The Munster Express

€149k legal bill and counting All Front Page News The Munster Express

On July 1 last The Munster Express broke the news that Waterford were set to lose the judicial review proceedings regarding Ferrybank Shopping centre.

It was reported that the next hearing on 6 July was due to be little more than a formality, with Waterford set to withdraw their case after being advised that judge was not inclined to rule in their favour.

After lying idle since 2008, Waterford Council’s attempt to delay or prevent the opening of a retail offering in Ferrybank Shopping Centre was met with outrage from the people who live there, the elected representatives of the area and even some Waterford councillors themselves—who asked to be completely disassociated from the judicial review.

A survey published by The Munster Express on the November 18 last year found that out of 32 Waterford Councillors, 12 supported the Judicial Review, 11 opposed it, and the remaining 9 were either undecided or provided no comment.

Most of those who supported the judicial review had faith in the council assessment that Kilkenny County Council were negligent in their planning decision and had not complied with their own regulations.

Speaking to The Munster Express in relation to the figure, Councillor Eamon Quinlan, who also works as a solicitor and opposed the judicial review from the outset, explained that the ordeal will not be well received by those living in Ferrybank.

“The nature of a judicial review means that even if it were a success, it would squash the grant of planning but Kilkenny County Council and Dunnes could simply re-run the application,” explained Cllr. Quinlan. “Meaning that Waterford City and County Council would have bought 12 weeks. Unless the application became stuck in the high court.

“This will leave a very bitter taste for those who live in Ferrybank,” he continued. “They will feel these sums [of money] would have been far better off spent on the community and the community facilities the area badly needs, rather than taking these kinds of legal action.”

The judicial review was brought by the Council management, headed by Chief Executive Sean McKeown, and had no involvement from Waterford’s elected councillors.

Following this result, Waterford CEO Sean McKeown explained why the judicial review was initiated, during the July meeting for Waterford’s Plenary Council.

“The basis of our case was that we felt that the planning permission that had issued by Kilkenny County Council to Dunnes was in contravention of their own County Development Plan,” he explained.

“We took legal advice on that. We carefully considered it. It’s not something we did lightly, but after that careful consideration and taking into account the legal advice that we had, we initiated the proceedings.

“Going back to the basis of the permission issued by Kilkenny County Council, it was on foot of a 2006 permission that had issued to Dunnes that was never commenced, that had expired, was almost 20 years old and was based on an entirely different retail context to what we’re now facing in Waterford City Centre,” he continued.

“So, I felt firmly and believed firmly that in that context it was important that a Retail Impact Assessment should be undertaken as per the requirements in the Kilkenny County Development Plan.

“Kilkenny County Council obviously took a different view. It is interesting to note and, I’m just stating facts here, the executive planner that submitted the report for consideration accepted our view and said that a Retail Impact Assessment is required in these circumstances,” he said.

“But the more senior officials, including the senior planner within Kilkenny County Council overruled that. That’s not unusual. That happens from time to time. But it is rare – it’s important just to note that, that did happen.

“Kilkenny and Dunnes contended the motivations of our judicial review proceedings stating that our appeal to the Coimisiún [Pleanála] had failed. Our appeal to the Coimisiún was never heard because we did not receive an acknowledgement in the prescribed form from Kilkenny County Council, that’s the facts,” Mr McKeown explained.

“So, in those circumstances, again after careful consideration, we initiated the judicial review proceedings.”

Mr. McKeown finished by explaining that the judicial review was brought reluctantly, and the outcome was unexpected.

“I hope those facts that I set out indicate the position that I took and set out as background to the reason why we reluctantly initiated these proceedings in the first place. Obviously, the outcome is not one that we expected, but we accept the outcome of the court and we will move on,” he added.

It remains to be seen where the money will come from the pay the legal bill in relation to high court action.

Also addressing the July meeting of Waterford’s Plenary council, Director of Services, Ivan Grimes, said the Council does have a budget for legal costs but that this case may well exceed it, saying: “In this case, it probably isn’t sufficient this year for the costs to be made”.

It seems likely then that these costs will be accounted for the in the upcoming budget of 2027, which is usually published in November.

Ironically, having to absorb such costs will offend Waterford City’s business owners—the very cohort the Council meant to protect when taking the judicial review—as they are still sore over a 3.5% increase in commercial rates in last year’s budget. Such use of public money will not be taken lightly.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.