Mount Juliet putting course challenge must be heard before planning appeal – judge

A legal challenge concerning the planning status of the removal of a golf putting course in Mount Juliet in Kilkenny will have to be dealt with before An Bord Pleanála deals with an appeal over the matter, a judge has ruled.

The Mount Juliet Estates Residents Group was last year granted permission by the High Court to seek judicial review of Kilkenny Co Council’s decision approving the removal of the putting course. It had been located north of the Rose Garden Lodges and east of the Walled Garden in Mount Juliet, Thomastown.

The putting course was built in 1997 to marry with and enhance the amenity provided by the main Mount Juliet golf course. It was modelled as a mini-Augusta in Georgia, US.

The residents claim that, between August and November 2016, the course was removed without planning permission and the land excavated and levelled to create a flat empty area.

The developers of Mount Juliet, MJBE Investments, then applied for permission, in October 2017, to put 12 houses on the land. That was ultimately refused by An Bord Pleanála.

The residents say, when they applied to the council to make a declaration the removal of the putting course required planning permission, the council decided it was exempt.

The residents appealed to An Bord Pleanála which held it was not exempt.

Subsequently, MJBE made its own application to the council for retention of the removal of the course and the council granted retention permission in April last year.

The residents then lodged an appeal to the board against that decision.

Separately, they brought a judicial review case claiming the council erred in law and failed to comply with EU habitats and environment impact assessment requirements in its decision.

The council and MJBE asked the High Court to put a stay on the residents’ judicial review pending the board’s decision on the residents’ appeal.

On Tuesday, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said the justice of the case was best served not by denying the residents judicial review challenge but by ensuring the proceedings receive an expeditious hearing in the next number of weeks.

He said priority is only to be given to an appeal to the board in circumstances where the matter is within the board’s jurisdiction.

The grounds of the residents’ judicial review are ones which, if well founded, affect the board’s jurisdiction to deal with the appeal, he said. The statutory criteria for a stay on the challenge are therefore not met, he said.