Tuesday, 17 September 2019

Planning free-for-all has developers reaching for the sky

The characteristic human scale of Dublin is now more in peril than at any time in its history, and the same is true of the State’s “second-tier” cities of Cork, Limerick, Galway and Waterford, as well as numerous smaller towns – all due to ultra-liberal planning guidelines that effectively permit developers to build whatever they like wherever they like. The mandatory guidelines on building heights imposed by Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government Eoghan Murphy last December have inaugurated an unprecedented free-for-all that looks certain to result in the relatively low-rise skylines of our urban areas being sacrificed on the altar of profit or hubris, with random eruptions of high-rise buildings all over the place.

Read the full article @ The Irish Times

Monday, 16 September 2019

Fast track planning permission being sought for 17-storey apartment tower in Cork city

Fast track planning permission is being sought this week for a 17-storey apartment tower at a density of 454 units per hectare, on Cork city’s South Link Road, on a compact site previously a rail track goods yard and sidings. The application for 118 apartments aimed at the Build to Rent (BTR) sector will be made directly to An Bord Pleanala for the development, on a 0.26 hectare site, linking to Rockborough Road by Bord Gais’s HQ, and to the South Link pedestrian bridge linking to Hibernian Road towards Anglesea Street. Being christened Railway Gardens and promoted by the Scally family who own the site and the adjoining business OB Heating, the site previously had planning permission granted in 2008 for offices. 
Read the full article @ The Irish Examiner

New plaza approved for north side of Ha’penny Bridge

The creation of a new pedestrian plaza for Dublin beside the Ha’penny Bridge on Liffey Street, has been approved by city councillors, despite objections from car park owners. The council earlier this year decided to draw up plans for a new plaza on the northside of the city following the refusal by An Bord Pleanála of the College Green plaza. A planned water feature incorporating a line of water jets, or mini fountains, has been scrapped after the council determined it would be “visually incongruous” and “impeding to the movement of pedestrians”.
Read the full article @ The Irish Times

Removal of on-street parking in BusConnects plans ‘problematic’

Designers of the BusConnects plan should seek to limit the removal of on-street parking in residential areas, Dublin City Council’s city planning officer has told the National Transport Authority (NTA). In a submission to the NTA, John O’Hara said the removal of on-street parking under the plans, particularly in residential areas where there is a reliance on such parking, is “problematic”.
Read the full article @ The Irish Times

Bord Pleanála rejects appeal by Josepha Madigan to relocate turf-cutters

Plans by the Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht, Josepha Madigan, to relocate turf-cutters to allow them extract peat from a raised bog in Co Kildare have been rejected because the activity would add to greenhouse gas emissions. An Bord Pleanála has turned down an appeal by the Minister against a decision of Kildare County Council to refuse her department planning permission for a proposal to allow turf-cutting at Coolree Bog near Prosperous, Co Kildare.
Read the full article @ Irish Times

Wednesday, 27 March 2019

Two Newtown planning appeals are turned down

An Bord Pleanála has upheld two planning rejections in Newtownmountkennedy after appeals were lodged against Wicklow County Council's decision to refuse permission last year. The appeals involved a business and enterprise building (to include a country market) and a separate application for motor car showrooms, both at Mountkennedy Demesne. In August of last year, Wicklow County Council refused Harvieston Ltd permission for a business and enterprise building consisting of an indoor country market, own-door starter employment units, enterprise units, childcare facility, food hall and kitchen, food business development units, toilet facilities along with parking and set down areas, relocation of existing pumping station along with ancillary site development works and services. In turning down the application, planners maintained that the development would be contrary to the zoning objective and overall vision for this action area.

Read the full article @ The Wicklow People

Planning application for Limerick Opera site lodged with An Bord Pleanála

Plans for Limerick's Opera site project have moved a step closer today.  Limerick City and County Council has lodged a planning application to An Bord Pleanála for the development.  The project is expected to employ up to 3,000 people and will be the largest inner-city commercial development outside of Dublin.  As well as a 14-storey office building, there are also plans for an apart-hotel, restaurants, and retail space. The 1.62-hectare site will be developed over a six-year period at a total cost of around €180m. 
Read the full article @ The Irish Examiner

Bartra seeking green light for 700-bed project

Richard Barrett's Bartra Capital has lodged plans to bring 725 new beds to a development in south-west Dublin. The developer has a €600m residential pipeline, including more than 1,500 shared living units. Bartra has been hit with numerous planning delays, especially at its scheme in Bulloch Harbour in South Dublin. Despite the delays, Bartra said that it was "hopeful" its huge development in Cookstown near Tallaght would be approved. The proposed development is made up of 150 build-to-rent units in five- to six-storey blocks and a further 222 shared-living bedrooms in six- to eight-storey blocks. Shared living was accounted for in recent changes to apartment guidelines by Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy. It bridges the gap between apartments and student accommodation. Occupants have their own en-suite room but share a communal kitchen and living area.

Read the full article @ The Irish Independent

Cork-Limerick motorway 'a shocking waste of taxpayers' money', lobby group says

A lobby group has said building a direct motorway link between Cork and Limerick is a major waste of taxpayers' money, because there is another one planned which will link the two cities. The Cork-Limerick Alliance Group (CLAG) says a proposed motorway between Cahir, Co Tipperary and Limerick would link up with the M8 (Cork-Dublin motorway) and it would be just as easy for traffic coming out of Cork to travel up the M8 and join it at Cahir. CLAG chairman, Brian Hyde, said the Cahir-Limerick route would cost approximately €550m to construct and would be considerably cheaper than the €900m direct link motorway (M20) between Cork and Limerick.
Read the full article @ The Irish Examiner

Southside leg of Metro axed under new plan

The proposed southside leg of the long-awaited MetroLink line is set to be massively curtailed. The line will not go all the way to Sandyford, as originally planned, as a result of opposition from residents and fears of years of disruption to the Luas Green Line. Meanwhile, the Irish Independent has learned that on the northside, facilities for Na Fianna and Ballymun Kickhams GAA clubs are set to be protected.  Key details of the new plan include: The Metro will run from Swords to Charlemont Street to meet the existing Luas service. The Metro will not continue down the Green Line to Sandyford, as had been proposed. Underground drilling is to continue as far as Ranelagh to allow for future expansion. Green Line Luas services are to be upgraded over the next decade to allow for a 55m tram every two minutes. The tunnel will be single bore.

Read the full article @ The Irish Independent

Planning appeal told of ‘controversy’ over Cork incinerator site

A legal challenge over the granting of planning permission for a €160 million incinerator at Ringaskiddy in Cork Harbour has opened at the High Court. Mr Justice David Barniville heard that planning permission was granted last May but a planning inspector with An Bord Pleanála had recommended that it be refused. Maurice Collins SC, for a group opposing the incinerator, said there has been “a continuum of planning activity and controversy” connected to the site at Cork Harbour.  Counsel said the inspector had recommended refusal of planning permission but An Bord Pleanala granted the permission by a five to two majority. 
Read the full article @ The Irish Times

Hope of rents being cut by €500 a month under major new affordable homes plan

A new scheme which aims to slash the rent of a two-bed apartment by more than €500 a month has been unveiled. The Land Development Agency has outlined plans for the country's first large-scale affordable rental plan. It aims to help solve the housing crisis by building thousands of homes and offering them at rent up to 25pc below the market rate. The typical rent for a two-bed apartment in south Dublin would fall from €1,850 to €1,302 a month under the proposed scheme. This would give the squeezed middle and lower- paid workers, who cannot get a mortgage, the chance to get a foothold in the market. The first project will be rolled out from the end of the year with the development of more than 300 homes in Dublin - but thousands more are in the pipeline. The first scheme is likely to be at Shanganagh in Shankill, in partnership with Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council.
Read the full article @ The Irish Independent

Ronan docklands project under fire from residents

Plans by developer Johnny Ronan to increase the scale of a residential and aparthotel development in Dublin's docklands are being opposed by a number of local residents. Last month, Mr Ronan's Spencer Place Development Co Ltd lodged plans to add 122 residential units and 27 aparthotel rooms to the development. If granted, it would give Mr Ronan's firm planning permission to construct 471 residential units and a 127-bedroom aparthotel. The development is currently under construction and is due to be complete in 2020. However, seven locals have objected including Tony and Hilda McDonnell of Upper Mayor Street who have told the city council that permission must be refused as the application goes against the objectives of the North Lotts Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) planning scheme. 

Read the full article @ The Irish Independent

Midleton GAA gets green light for move to new site

Midleton GAA club has secured planning permission for a move to new grounds to cater an expansion in its membership. An Bord Pleanála has rejected an appeal by a local resident living near the site of the proposed new clubhouse at Park South off the Youghal Rd in the east Cork town. The planning appeals board upheld the original decision of Cork County Council to approve the development of new facilities for Midleton GAA club against the recommendation of its own inspector. Subject to a number of planning conditions, the board said the new club grounds would not seriously injure the residential or visual amenities of the area.
Reads the full article @ The Irish Examiner

Galway Hospice ‘shocked and devastated’ by planning refusal

Galway Hospice has decided not to appeal the “devastating” refusal of planning permission for a new facility on the grounds of Merlin Park hospital. The board of the hospital said it had “reluctantly” decided not to seek a judicial review of An Bord Pleanála’s decision because of the significant costs and risks involved. The provision of a new hospice in the city will be greatly delayed as a search is undertaken for a new site, it warned. The current hospice facility on the Dublin Road at Renmore is not fit for purpose and the search for a new site began in 2010. The proposal to build a new facility at Merlin Park was approved by Galway City Council and recommended by an An Bord Pleanála inspector but overturned by the planning board, who said the development would be “inappropriate and contrary to policies to protect natural heritage”.
Read the full article @ The Irish Times

€10m social housing plan for former company HQ in Cork

Plans to convert a 1960s office block in one of Cork's most desirable residential areas into a €10m social housing scheme have been unveiled. Cork City Council has published a Part 8 planning application today seeking permission to adapt and extend the former Springville House in Blackrock, and then change its use to facilitate the development of 35 residential units within the fabric of the existing office building. The plans are open for public consultation until May 13. The prime 0.6-acre site on the city's Blackrock Rd, close to Ashton School and the South Link Rd.
Read the full article @ The Irish Examiner

Six apartment blocks to be built in Chapelizod without planning permission

A complex of six “rapid build” social housing apartment blocks, up to five storeys high, is to be built beside the Phoenix Park in Chapelizod by Dublin City Council, without going through the planning process. Work is due to start next month on the complex of 71 apartments, which is set to be the first prefabricated apartment development built in the city, on the site of community allotments at Springvale opposite the 19th-century Church of the Nativity on Chapelizod Road, Dublin 20. Local residents have described the development as “disastrous” for Chapelizod village but have had no opportunity to appeal the scheme because the council is developing it without seeking planning permission.

Read the full article @ The Irish Times

Historic Dublin bakery faces demolition for student scheme

Plans for five blocks of student accommodation up to eight storeys high on Dublin’s Parnell Street are facing opposition over the partial demolition of the old St Peter’s Bakery. SP Bakery Ltd intends to apply to An Bord Pleanála for fast-track planning permission for the complex for 257 students at the east end of Parnell Street, close to the junction with Gardiner Street and opposite the 491-bed Kavanagh Court student scheme. Under the Strategic Housing Development system applications for schemes of more than 100 homes, or blocks of 200 student bed spaces, are made directly to the board, bypassing the local authority decision phase.
Read the full article @ The Irish Times

Holiday homeowners ‘dictating’ the needs of Kerry community

The chief executive of a major New York construction company has hit out at the influence of holiday homeowners in the planning process in rural Ireland, saying environmental objectors are getting “to dictate” the needs of communities.There is growing anger in south Kerry that plans for a revamp of the landmark Cable O’Leary’s bar and hotel, the only facility in the village overlooking Ballinskelligs Bay, have been blocked after a number of objections, primarily from some of the roughly 300 holiday homeowners in the area. Amid continuing decline in population, just 50 houses are now occupied on a permanent basis in what is the heart of the south Kerry Gaeltacht.
Read the full article @ The Irish Times

Friday, 8 February 2019

Launching Judicial Reviews for Strategic Infrastructure Developments

Applications for consent to launch a judicial review must be made to the High Court. 

On 2 February 2018, the President of the High Court issued a Practice Direction concerning judicial review applications relating to SIDs (HC74 – ‘Judicial Review Applications in respect of Strategic Infrastructure Developments’). According to the Practice Direction:

1. As and from Monday, 26th February, 2018 all applications for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of permissions or decisions concerning strategic infrastructure developments must be made to Mr. Justice Barniville. They may not be made to any other judge.

2. Mr. Justice Barniville will sit at 10.30am each Thursday during term to hear such applications.

3. The applicant for such leave must lodge all the necessary papers in support of the application in a bound, indexed and paginated form with the Central Office marked “Strategic Infrastructure Application” not later than 4.00pm on the preceding Monday.

4. Should leave be granted to the applicant to apply for judicial review Mr. Justice Barniville will give all necessary ancillary directions with a view to ensuring a fair just and expeditious hearing of the matter.

5. For the purposes of this Practice Direction a strategic infrastructure development is development in respect of which a direct application is made for development consent to An Bord Pleanála in accordance with the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2000 as amended.

If you have any questions, please give me a call on 087-2615871.

Wicklow seafront's old brown gym building to become residential

An Bord Pleanála has overturned a decision by Wicklow County Council refusing permission to change the usage of a building on Wicklow's sea front from a gym to residential. Last year Maurice Sheehy applied to Wicklow County council for a change of use of a building previously used as a gym to residential building consisting of four apartments at ground floor level with private terracing, with unchanged plans granted to two apartments with balconies and changes to roof profile at first floor level, alterations to external facades including windows, doors, eternal wall rendering and associated works. However, the local authority planning section refused permission on the grounds that the development was considered contrary to the harbour strategy in place as part of the Wicklow town and Rathnew Development Plan 2013-2019 and was also considered contrary to the Town Centre zoning objective.  An appeal was lodged with An Bord Pleanála, who back in August of 2017 gave permission for a change of use at the same premises from gym to a mixed development consisting of licensed restaurant/café, beach shop with take-away facility, and function room, all at ground floor level, and two one-bedroom apartments at first floor level, and alterations to external facades.

Read the full article @ The Wicklow People

The Board's decision and Inspector's Report can be viewed here.

The Board stated in making the decision:

"Having regard to the Town Centre zoning objective for the area, the existing pattern of development in the vicinity and recent planning history relating to the site, it is considered that, subject to compliance with the conditions set out below, the proposed development would not contravene the provisions of the Wicklow Town – Rathnew Development Plan 2013-2019, would be compatible with the existing pattern of development in the vicinity and would be in accordance with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area".

€8m Avondale upgrade

Some €8 million will be invested into the redevelopment of Avondale House and Forest Park to turn it into a state-of-the-art visitor destination. Coillte, in association with Fáilte Ireland, made the announcement on Monday. The redevelopment project is titled 'A Place for Visionaries' and will consist of interactive education technologies designed to promote learning, new walkway trails comprising of subterranean pathways and tunnels and an elevated timber lattice walkway 460m in length to be erected overlooking the forest canopy and Avonmore River valley. The plans also include a state-of-the-art visitor centre, restaurant and café. Avondale, once the home of Charles Stewart Parnell, is now owned by Coillte and is considered the birthplace of Irish forestry.
Read the full article @ The Wicklow People

Wicklow County Council v Beattie [2019] IEHC 18

I had a call this morning asking about the final judgement in this case. Please see the judgement below.

Wicklow County Council v Beattie [2019] IEHC 18
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered on the 15th day of January, 2019

1. In this application, the applicant ("the Council") seeks an order pursuant to s. 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended, compelling the respondent ("Mr. Beattie") to comply with certain conditions attached to planning permission 07/1080 which relates to the lands comprised in Folio 5759F County Wicklow.

2. The lands in question are part of the Beattie farm situated at Tinode, Kilbride, Blessington, County Wicklow. The farm has been in the possession of the Beattie family since approximately 1912. The farm in total contains 73.9 hectares of which 20.8 are the subject matter of the relevant planning application. Access to the farm is gained via an entrance off the N81 which is the main Tallaght to Blessington Road. This entrance has been in existence for many decades and certainly prior to 1st October, 1964.

3. In 2006, Mr. Beattie applied to the Council for planning permission for a new dwelling house on the land. There was then, and still is, no dwelling house on the land. On 26th April, 2007, planning permission reference no. 06/5174 was granted to Mr. Beattie for the development of a two storey house with a new entrance to the site and a new wastewater treatment plant. A number of the conditions attached to this planning permission related to the new entrance. Condition 5 required 120 metre sight lines, condition 6 related to the surface material of the new entrance and condition 8 provided that surface water runoff from, inter alia , the entrance, should be collected on site and not permitted to flow onto the public roadway.

4. Planning permission 06/5174 was subject to the normal five-year lifespan so that it would, if not implemented, expire on 26th April, 2012. Although it was Mr. Beattie's intention to construct the house, events overtook that plan in the shape of the economic collapse and thereafter he was no longer financially in a position to commence the construction. The entrance provided for by the 06/5174 permission was onto the R759 rural road which also bounded the Beattie farm but importantly carries a lower volume of traffic than the N81. The Council previously refused to grant Mr. Beattie permission for a development that utilised the existing N81 entrance on traffic hazard grounds.

5. The architect that represented Mr. Beattie in his various planning applications was John M. Taylor of Freyer and Taylor Architects, 39 North Avenue, Mount Merrion, County Dublin. Mr. Taylor made a further planning application on Mr. Beattie's behalf in 2007 for retention of certain farm buildings and construction of new ones. This application, bearing reference 07/1080, was granted by the Council on 28th March, 2008, for retention of:- 

"453 sq.m agricultural embryo storage facility with associated stores, office and farm workshop 675 sq.m wintering cattle facility, a new 357 sq.m feed store, new Envirocare wastewater treatment plant with percolation area, all with access from the R759 road at the Beattie farm, Tinode, Kilbride." 

6. As can be seen from the foregoing, the terms of the permission appear to provide for retention of two structures being the embryo storage facility and the wintering cattle facility allied to the erection of a new feed store and wastewater treatment plant. The granting of permission was subject to eighteen conditions but it is with conditions 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 that this application is concerned. In summary, these conditions provided:-

1. Permission refers to the development as described in the lodged documents;

2. Mr. Beattie should lodge the sum of €2,500 as security for compliance;

3. Mr. Beattie should lodge the sum of €2,000 as security for tree planting;

13. As this is the central issue in the case, I will quote it in full:- "Before the new entrance is brought into use, the existing entrance (off the N81) shall be permanently and effectively closed off by the erection of a boundary matching the existing boundary in height, design, construction and finish, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the planning authority";

14. 120m sight lines should be provided as per the layout plan;

15. Proposals for landscaping and tree planting should be submitted within three months;

16. Tree planting should be carried out during the first planting season;

17. The wastewater treatment plant should comply with certain standards and evidence of that should be submitted to the Council on completion.

7. The planning application was submitted with a covering letter from Mr. Taylor dated 17th May, 2007. In it, he referred to the fact that the application related to 20.8 hectares of the total farm area of 73.9 hectares and that the relevant portion contained the embryo unit to be retained as well as a then proposed winter feeding facility and a new house for Mr. Beattie. In the first page of the letter, Mr. Taylor referred to the fact that permission for this house had been granted on foot of 06/5174 but not yet constructed. On p. 2 of the letter, Mr. Taylor said the following:-

"It is proposed that there will be a shared entrance/exit for the house and the proposed wintering facility from the R759. See enclosed plans. It should be noted that permission has already been granted for an entrance at this location to serve the proposed new house. An application was previously made for this development but was refused on the grounds of access. It was proposed at that time to access the facility from the N81. This new application proposed an alternative means of access to the proposed facility."

8. Although in the course of the hearing of the appeal before me, counsel on behalf of the Council indicated that enforcement of all the above conditions was being sought, it is clear that the primary concern of the Council is with the existing entrance onto the N81, which has not been closed, and the corresponding fact that the entrance onto the R759 has not been constructed.

9. In 2011, with the expiry of the planning permission 06/5174 for the dwelling house fast approaching, Mr. Beattie applied for an extension to that permission. This was refused by the Council for one reason, namely that there was a significant change in the development objectives in the development plan since the date of the original permission such that the development would no longer be consistent with the proper planning and sustainable development of the area. Accordingly, the Council was precluded from extending the permission by virtue of s. 42(1)(a)(ii)(II) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, as amended.

10. What this reason in fact refers to is the intention of the roads authority to construct a new link road over part of the Beattie farm which would in effect destroy at least part of the development that would otherwise have been authorised under permission 06/5174.

11. One of the central issues in this case is whether the entrance onto the R759 was authorised under permission 06/5174 or alternatively, 07/1080. The Council argues that permission 07/1080 clearly on its face provides for access for the retained and new developments from the R759 and the failure to construct the new entrance means that Mr. Beattie is in breach of condition 13.

12. Mr. Beattie, on the other hand, contends that the new entrance to the R759 was neither applied for nor granted by permission 07/1080, but was in fact both applied for and granted by permission 06/5174 which has now expired and cannot therefore be implemented, the Council having refused an extension. Mr. Beattie says that condition 13 could only ever apply if and when the new entrance was constructed and as that cannot now happen, condition 13 can never be complied with and is accordingly unenforceable.

13. The Council counter this with the argument that the plans submitted by Mr. Taylor in respect of application 07/1080 clearly showed the new entrance and the development must be carried out in accordance with those plans and particulars. In response, Mr. Beattie says that it was of course appropriate and necessary to show what had already been granted on foot of permission 06/5174 when applying for the new permission. He argues that the plans submitted in support of application 07/1080 not only showed the new entrance but also the new house but it could not seriously be suggested that permission for the house was re-granted by 07/1080.

14. The touchstone in interpreting grants of planning permission is to be found in the unanimous judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by McCarthy J. in X.J.S. Investments Limited [1986] I.R.750 where he said (at 756):-

"Certain principles may be stated in respect of the true construction of planning documents:—

(a) To state the obvious, they are not Acts of the Oireachtas or subordinate legislation emanating from skilled draftsmen and inviting the accepted canons of construction applicable to such material.

(b) They are to be construed in their ordinary meaning as it would be understood by members of the public, without legal training as well as by developers and their agents, unless such documents, read as a whole, necessarily indicate some other meaning…" 

15. What the court therefore is concerned with in determining the true meaning of planning documents is what an ordinary member of the public would understand them to mean. Such meaning cannot be derived by reference to facts known only to the parties to the application but to such facts as are readily discernible from all of the planning documents that are available to the public when read as a whole. Those documents include of course not only the design drawings and plans but any correspondence on the planning file that is available for the public to peruse.

16. In the present case, such correspondence clearly includes Mr. Taylor's letter of 17th May, 2007. That letter includes a reference to the previous permission 06/5174 in respect of the dwelling house. Such a reference is also to be found in the terms of the pro forma planning application itself. Importantly however, it would be clear to any member of the public reading the passage in Mr. Taylor's letter which I have quoted above that permission had already been granted under the earlier permission for the new entrance and there was thus no requirement for a new application to be made for this entrance.

17. What was applied for under 07/1080 was "access" off the R759 and that is what was granted - not a new entrance onto the R759 because there was no requirement for such permission, same having already been granted a year earlier. I am fortified further in that view by the fact that permission 06/5174 contained explicit conditions, to which I have referred above, referable to the construction of the entrance whereas such or similar conditions are entirely absent from 07/1080. Further support for this conclusion is to be found in the contents of the respective public site notices posted by Mr. Beattie on the lands. The 2006 notice refers to a "new entrance to site" whereas the 2007 notice refers to "all with access from the R759 road".

18. The mere fact that the plans accompanying application 07/1080 showed the new entrance on the R759 cannot without more be taken as indicating that such permission was being applied for because as noted above, the plans also showed the dwelling house for which permission had similarly been granted on foot of 06/5174.

19. Even if it were not clearly the case that 06/5174 grants permission for the new entrance, the best that can be said from the Council's point of view is that there may be an element of ambiguity as between the meaning and intent of 06/5174 and 07/1080 vis-a-vis the new entrance. In an application for a s. 160 injunction, as in any other injunction application, the onus rests upon the moving party to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that unauthorised development has taken, or is taking, place. As that proposition, in the context of condition 13 at any rate, hangs on establishing that the new entrance is permitted under 07/1080 and not 06/5174, the Council must, in my opinion, be viewed as having failed to discharge that onus.

20. It must equally follow that the Council have failed to establish that there has been a breach of condition 13 because there is no requirement to comply with it unless and until the entrance onto the N81 is closed and the new entrance is brought into use, an event which cannot occur by virtue of permission 06/5174 being now spent. I think the Council's argument that the 07/1080 permission granted permission for the new entrance must also be viewed in the light of the fact that if it did, it was not applied for and this would prima facie render it ultra vires the Council. Since the permission must be assumed to have been granted intra vires , this is a further reason for concluding that the later permission did not grant the new entrance.

21. I turn now to the remaining conditions, apart from condition 13, of which complaint is made by the Council. Determining to what, if any, extent these should now be given effect , I must have regard to the well settled principles to be applied in s. 160 proceedings, usefully summarised by Barrett J. in St. Margaret's Concerned Residents Group & ors v. Dublin Airport Authority PLC [2017] IEHC 694 (at para. 86):- 

"It is a well-established principle of Irish planning law that the courts will disregard immaterial deviations from a planning permission, or trivial or technical breaches of same. ( Sweetman, (SC) ) [ Sweetman v. Shell E & P Ireland Limited [2016] IESC 2]). The question of the nature of any breach of planning permission is relevant on two levels. First, from a general perspective a breach may be sufficiently immaterial or trivial as not to amount to unauthorised development. Second, in the specific context of the discretionary nature of s.160 proceedings, even if there has been unauthorised development, the trivial or immaterial nature of any breach may be such that it is not appropriate to grant relief. In the court's view, the facts at issue in the within proceedings come into this second category."

22. As already discussed, although the Council did not abandon alleged breaches of conditions other than condition 13, the latter was very much the focus of this case. There was no realistic suggestion of a failure to otherwise carry out the development in accordance with the permission and in particular, in the context of the tree planting requirements, it appears to be conceded by the Council that Mr. Beattie has planted trees very extensively and far in excess of what was required of him under the terms of the permission. To that extent, insofar as conditions 2 and 3 are concerned, which require security deposits, I am satisfied no ongoing necessity for the lodging of such deposits has been established by the Council and any failure in that regard has now to be viewed as trivial or merely technical. The same considerations apply to conditions 15, 16 and 17. Condition 14 relates to sight lines for the new entrance but in view of the conclusions I have arrived at, this is no longer material.

23. For these reasons therefore, I propose to allow Mr. Beattie's appeal herein and dismiss the Council's application. 

Permanent public link to the judgement available here.

Shed built by couple beside their home was unauthorised, High Court rules

A couple who built a shed/workshop next to their Wicklow house without planning permission have failed in a High Court appeal challenging enforcement proceedings against them. Liam Lee and Jean Tompkins failed to establish the two-storey structure was built more than seven years before the local council brought proceedings against them. No action can be taken, by law, if proceedings are not brought within seven years from the start of the development. Mr Justice Seamus Noonan rejected an appeal by the couple over the dormer-type structure which is independent of their house at Kilmurry Lower, Baltinglass. Mr Lee obtained planning permission from Wicklow Co Council for a two storey dwelling on the land in 2003 and built a house there.

Read the full article @ The Irish Independent

The High Court judgement is provided below:

Wicklow County Council v LIAM LEE AND JEAN TOMPKINS [2019] IEHC 19

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Noonan delivered on the 15th day of January, 2019

1. This appeal is brought by the respondents from an order of the Circuit Court (Her Honour Judge Reynolds) made on the 30th June, 2015 pursuant to s.160 of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, as amended, whereby the respondents were enjoined to cease an unauthorised development on their property at Kilmurry Lower Baltinglass, County Wicklow being the property comprised in Folio 25510F County Wicklow. In the original motion before the Circuit Court, the applicant ("the Council") sought a wide range of reliefs which were granted but the within appeal is concerned only with that part of the order that related to an unauthorised dormer structure/dwelling, to which I will refer as "the shed/workshop", and the construction of an unauthorised wall, referred to as "the screen wall".

2. On the 16th May, 2002, the Council granted planning permission to the first respondent to build a single storey dwelling on the lands (reference 02/6132). On the 24th April, 2003, the Council issued a further permission to the first respondent for a change of house type from single storey to two storey (reference 02/7168). The dwelling house and associated works were duly completed on the land.

3. In or about 2013, it came to the Council's attention that a large two storey dormer structure, independent of the house, had also been constructed on the lands without permission. Further a large brick wall was constructed also without permission. It is not in dispute that both of these structures, the shed/workshop and the screen wall, are unauthorised.

4. The dispute in this case centres on a single issue, namely whether the Council are precluded from bringing the within proceedings by virtue of lapse of time. In that regard the relevant statutory provision is to be found in s.160 subs. (6) of the 2000 Act which provides as follows:
"(6) (a) An application to the High Court or Circuit Court for an order under this section shall not be made—
(i) in respect of a development where no permission has been granted, after the expiration of a period of 7 years from the date of the commencement of the development, or

(ii) in respect of a development for which permission has been granted under Part III, after the expiration of a period of 7 years beginning on the expiration, as respects the permission authorising the development, of the appropriate period (within the meaning of section 40) or, as the case may be, of the appropriate period as extended under section 42 …"
5. It can be seen therefore that where the development is one for which no permission has been granted, a seven-year limitation period applies but in the case of a development for which permission has been granted, the period is seven years from the expiry of the permission, which itself has a lifespan of five years, giving a total limitation period of twelve years. The affidavits in support of the application were sworn by the Council's assistant planner, Lucy Roche which detail the planning history of the matter. The issues that arise in these proceedings were first brought to Ms. Roche's attention in or about February of 2013 when she reviewed the file and, on the 21st March, 2013, carried out an inspection of the property. Although she could not access the site, she was able to observe that an unauthorised large dormer structure was constructed to the east of the dwelling enclosed by a large brick wall.

6. Arising from Ms. Roche's inspection, a warning letter was sent by the Council to the respondents on the 9th April, 2013. This resulted in the Council being contacted by a Mr. John O'Hanlon on behalf of the respondents who indicated that he had been requested to deal with the matters raised in the warning letter. Nothing further was heard from Mr. O'Hanlon and accordingly a second warning letter was sent on the 10th July, 2013. A second inspection was carried out by Ms. Roche on the 1st October, 2013 which disclosed no change and accordingly on the next day, the 2nd October, 2013 an enforcement notice was served upon the respondents.

7. This again elicited no response and a third inspection was carried out by Ms. Roche on the 21st January, 2014 again disclosing no change. In apparent response to the enforcement notice, on the 15th April, 2014 the first respondent applied for retention permission to the Council in respect of, inter alia , the shed/workshop. The Council's solicitors sought an undertaking from the respondents that they would cease the unauthorised development by letter of the 24th April, 2014 to which no response was forthcoming. Accordingly, the within proceedings issued on the 14th May, 2014.

8. A further retention application was made by the first respondent seeking retention of the screen wall on the 9th October, 2014. A fourth inspection was carried out by Ms. Roche on the 15th October, 2014. On the 20th November, 2014, the Council refused permission for the screen wall and by further decision of the 21st January, 2015, refused retention of the shed/workshop.

9. Following the refusal of the two retention applications, the first respondent swore a replying affidavit in these proceedings on the 27th April, 2015, when he raised for the first time the limitation issue on the basis that since more than seven years had elapsed between the commencement of the unauthorised development and the commencement of the proceedings, the Council could not pursue the matter further. Following the making of the order by the Circuit Court in April 2015, the respondents served notice of appeal and on the 30th June, 2015, again applied for retention permission of the existing dwelling house, garage and outbuildings as constructed. On the 3rd July, 2015, the Council granted permission for the dwelling house but refused retention of the garage and outbuildings.

10. In his first replying affidavit, the first respondent accepts that the shed/workshop and screen wall were built without planning permission. He claims however that the development commenced more than seven years prior to the institution of these proceedings. The first respondent's evidence in this regard is that the construction of the shed/workshop commenced on or about the 22nd April, 2004 and the foundations of the screen wall were constructed on the 3rd February, 2005. He refers to certain invoices for concrete he claims was purchased for this purpose. The first respondent's evidence in that regard is supported by an affidavit of Donougha O'Brien, a groundworks contractor who avers that in April 2004, he was engaged to excavate and lay foundations for the shed/workshop and screen wall, inter alia .

11. He further says that as a result of consulting his diary, he is satisfied that on the 20th April, 2004, he excavated foundations for the entrance wall and boiler house, neither of which are relevant to these proceedings. He goes on to say that on the 22nd April, 2004, he returned in order to pour the concrete floor of the shed/workshop. He does not appear to make any explicit reference to pouring the foundations for the screen wall.

12. The respondents rely on a further affidavit of Gerry Nolan, a block layer, who avers that he attended in early 2005 at the property to build the screen wall, the foundations of which were already completed. He does not appear to indicate what actual works were carried out by him or to what extent the construction of the screen wall was undertaken. In fact, this is confirmed by the first respondent's second affidavit. In response to an averment by Ms. Roche that an aerial photograph taken in 2005 does not appear to detail the garage or screen wall, the first respondent says the following:

"For the avoidance of any doubt, the respondents have never claimed that these structures were completed before 2005. We maintain that these developments were, however, commenced in 2004 and 2005 respectively. I worked on those structures on a piecemeal basis after the development commenced: I purchased materials when I could afford them and I did the work myself. As a result, although the development commenced in 2004 and 2005, the shed (which was the last structure to be finished) was not actually completed until late 2010 or early 2011."

13. A number of Google Earth and Google Street View images are exhibited in the affidavits of Ms. Roche. A street view image from March 2009 clearly shows that while the screen wall is present, the shed/workshop is not, certainly above the level of the wall at any rate. The Google Earth image from 2010 appears to show items such as vehicles and/or containers in the area now occupied by the shed/workshop. Google Earth and Street View images from 2011 clearly however show the presence of the shed/workshop which appears to be fully or substantially completed. This appears to be confirmed by the first respondent in his affidavit above quoted where he says that the shed/workshop was not actually completed until late 2010 or early 2011.

14. It is notable however that there is no evidence before the court as to what precise works were done by the respondents or when they were done, either in terms of the shed/workshop or the screen wall. All that the evidence appears to establish is that the concrete for the workshop floor was poured in April 2004 and foundations for the wall possibly in 2005. It is thus not known when the screen wall that is to be seen in the 2009 photographs was actually constructed to the extent seen in those photographs, nor is there evidence of what degree of construction of the shed/workshop actually occurred before it was substantially or totally completed in 2010/2011.

15. The only persons who can establish these facts are the respondents who have chosen not to do so. In the case of the screen wall for example, the building of such wall, up to a certain height at any rate, may well have constituted exempted development under the planning code. It is only when the permitted height was exceeded, as it was here, that this development became an unauthorised development. There is no evidence before the court as to when this occurred.

16. I am satisfied that the authorities establish that where a time bar defence is relied upon by a developer in answer to an application under s.160, the onus rests upon the developer to prove when the development commenced - see Wicklow County Council v. Fortune [2012] IEHC 406. In tandem with that issue lies the question of when a development can be said to have commenced. In that regard, it is important to bear in mind that the evidence in this case, in relation to the shed/workshop at any rate, establishes that while some very preliminary work in the nature of concrete pouring may well have been undertaken in 2004, nothing of substance appears to have happened subsequently for some six years. In Dublin County Council South v. Balfe Ltd [1995] WJSC-HC 4391, this court (Costello J.) considered when a development had commenced for the purposes of an application under s.27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, the predecessor of s.160. In that case, as here, there had been a substantial lacuna between what the developer claimed was the commencement of the unauthorised user and its resumption. In that regard, the court noted (at p.4408):
"In my opinion when a use has been abandoned and then recommenced nearly four years later an occupant cannot rely on an earlier use to support a claim that the limitation period in the section should run from the earlier date and not from the date of recommencement. If construed in the way urged by the respondents it would be a simple matter to drive a coach-and-four through the section by discontinuing an unauthorised use after a warning notice had been served and then re-commence it again after several years when a limitation period based on the discontinued unauthorized user had expired, and I consider that the section cannot be so construed."
17. Although that case concerned user as distinct from construction, it seems to me that this logic must be equally applicable to the facts of the present case. It would for example clearly be an absurd construction of the section to suggest that because one block is laid and left in situ for ten years before a building is constructed that the development commenced with the laying of the block. In Kildare County Council v. Goode [1999] 2 IR 495, the Supreme Court had to consider whether quarrying activities carried on by the respondents on their lands required planning permission. They contended that the extraction of sand and gravel was a "works development" as defined by the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963.

18. Barron J., with whom the other members of the court agreed, found that the expression "works" was intended to refer to activity which was "carried out once and for all and as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. It was intended to apply to temporary activity involving the erection of structures or changes to or removal of existing structures" (at p. 502).

19. In my view, the concept of "commencement of the development" involves a reasonably continuous, but temporary, unitary process leading to a completion of the development in issue. Something which is done sporadically and piecemeal with intervening significant periods of inactivity and abandonment, cannot in my opinion amount to a "commencement of the development" within the meaning of s.160. Seen in that light, it seems probable that the development here which led to the completion or substantial completion of the shed/workshop can only be viewed as having commenced in or around 2010. However, it is not for the Council to prove that.

20. In relation to the shed/workshop, I am therefore satisfied that the respondents have not discharged the onus of establishing that the commencement of the development happened more than seven years prior to the institution of these proceedings.

21. With regard to the screen wall, as I have already indicated there is no evidence before the court as to when this was constructed, to its present height at any rate. As noted above, the development would only have become unauthorised once a certain height was reached and the respondents have chosen to put no evidence before the court of when this occurred. The pouring of the foundations, without more, cannot therefore amount to the commencement of the development, which of course can only refer to the unauthorised development.

22. For these reasons therefore, the respondents have failed to discharge the onus which rests upon them of establishing that the unauthorised development in issue commenced more than seven years prior to the institution of these proceedings. It is accordingly unnecessary for me to consider whether or not the longer twelve-year time limit would in any event be applicable to this case. I therefore propose to dismiss this appeal and affirm the order of the Circuit Court.

Public link to the judgement available here.