The Gazette 1982

60 / 250

INCORPORATED LAW SOCIETY OF IRELAND GAZETTE
Vol. 76 No. 3 April 1982
In this i s s u e . . . .
The Application of the
'Peculiar Knowledge' principle
in Irish Criminal Law 53
Solicitors Accounts Regulations 61
The Training of Advocates
in the Netherlands 63
Gammell v. Wilson & Ors —
A further Commentary 65
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.
Comment...
• • • the Pine Valley Case
THE "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