Members of Wicklow County Council have initiated High Court proceedings against the county manager over the granting of planning permission for the conversion of a milking parlour for use as a pet crematorium.
Wicklow County Council yesterday applied for leave to bring a challenge, by way of judicial review, to quash the manager's decision of July 13th, 2000 to grant planning permission for the conversion of the premises at Oghill, Redcross.
The council also wants an order directing the manager to comply with a direction given to him on July 10th, 2000 to refuse planning permission. The manager is opposing the leave application.
It is claimed that, at a council meeting on July 10th, 2000, 22 of the 24 members entitled to vote voted for a motion directing the manager to refuse permission.
No member voted against.
The council claims the manager was required to comply with the direction. The decision three days later to grant planning permission to Mr Andrew Byrne for the development was in direct contravention of the direction.
In his grounds of opposition, the manager argues that in the exercise of his executive functions for the council as planning authority, he was not obliged to comply with the resolution of July 10th, 2000, pursuant to Section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act, for a number of reasons.
He argues that in passing the resolution, the elected members failed to confine themselves to relevant and legitimate matters and failed to disregard irrelevant and illegitimate factors.
The disputed decision is also under appeal to An Bord Pleanála, he added.
A member of the council, Mr Patrick Doran, said in an affidavit that the application for the development was submitted by Mr Andrew Byrne of Bray Vet Animal Hospital.
Mr Doran said he had received a large number of representations from members of the public who were concerned about the nature of the proposed development. The representations came mainly from residents in the Redcross area, though not exclusively so.
The principal concerns were with regard to health. While the development was described as a pet incinerator, it was an incinerator nonetheless and would be used for the incineration of animals, be they pets or otherwise.