The Gazette 1981

155 / 298

INCORPORATED I AW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE
Vol. 75, No. 7.
In this i s sue . . .
Constitutional and Other Remedies
for Remand and Convicted
Prisoners 157
Birth, Marriage and Death
Certificates 162
Land Registry/Solicitors Certificate as
to Title 162
Matrimonial Problems: Counselling
— Another Option? 163
District Court (Family Law
(Protection of Spouses and
Children) Act, 1981) Rules 171
Election of Young Solicitors to
Council? 177
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.
September 1981
Comme nt . . .
THERE 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)
155