The Gazette 1981

INCORPORATED I AW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE Vol. 75, No. 7. In this i s sue . . . Comment 155 Constitutional and Other Remedies for Remand and Convicted Prisoners 157 For Your Diary 161 Birth, Marriage and Death Certificates 162 Land Registry/Solicitors Certificate as to Title 162 Conveyancing Note 162 Matrimonial Problems: Counselling — Another Option? 163 Access to Justice and Legal Aid 167 District Court (Family Law (Protection of Spouses and Children) Act, 1981) Rules 171 Table of Fees in Circuit Court Matters 172 Solicitors and the Bar 174 Presentation of Parchments 176 Election of Young Solicitors to Council? 177 Golf 178 Correspondence 178 Professional Information 179 September 1981

Comme nt . . . T HERE was general public and professional approval for the introduction of An Bord Pleanala as the Tribunal for determining appeals from decisions of Planning Authorities. It was generally believed to be preferable that the ultimate power of decision in planning matters should be removed from the political arena. Before the introduction of the new appeal system there was a widespread belief, the evidence for which may well have been virtually non-existent, that while the decision on appeals rested with the Minister, as long as the appropriate political strings could be pulled, a favourable decision could be expected. Until recently, there seemed to be broad approval for the decisions of An Bord Pleanala, if not always from the Planning Authorities whose decisions had been reversed. A recent development which appears to be increasing in size as well as in geographical spread is the use by members of certain Local Authorities of the provisions of Section 4 of the City and County Management Act, 1955. to order the County or City Manager to grant a permission for a development where a refusal would be recommended by the Planning Officer and any such refusal would be likely to be upheld by the Board. Formerly, the Section 4 procedure was used where an Applicant knew that his application would contravene the development plan, and thus necessarily attract a recommendation for refusal from the Planning Officer. A more recent development is that where a previous application, sufficiently altered to avoid it being rejected as a duplicate of the previous application, is submitted to the Authority. The wheels are then set in motion Tor a Section 4 Order. Where such an Order is made, only a Third Party Appeal can bring the permission before the Board for review. The main purpose of the 1955 Act was to extend the powers of the clected representatives on Local Authorities. Section 4 of that Act conferred a decision making power on the elected members of a Local Authority, subjcct to certain exclusions. It can hardly have been intended by the draughtsman or the legislators, when the 1955 Act was being introduced, that Us provisions could be used to nullify a decision of an administrative tribunal operating under another statute. It is significant that Local Authorities were restricted from using the Scction 4 procedure when exercising their jurisdiction as Health Boards. What is particularly unattractive about the use of the Scction 4 procedure is the encouragement of that peculiarly Irish form of corruption, "return of the favour". Party divisions mean little on such occasions: "you vote for my Section 4 notice tonight and I will vote for yours next time" ensures success for the motion. (Continued on page 162)

Executive Editor: Mary Buckley Editorial Board: Charles R. M. Meredith (Chairman). John F. Buckley William Earley Michael V. O'Mahony Maxwell Sweeney Advertising Liam Ó hOisin Manager: 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.

155