Dublin Corporation -v- Lowe [2004] IESC 106 (17 December 2004)

Dublin Corporation -v- Lowe [2004] IESC 106 (17 December 2004)

The replacement of the advertisement hoarding constituted an alteration to the planning unit (gable wall with hoarding) but did not materially affect the external appearance of the premises so as to render it inconsistent with the character of the structure or neighbouring structures. Therefore, the works were exempted development under s.4(1)(g), and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2004] IESC 106
Parties
Applicant/appellant: The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin; Respondent: Arnold Lowe; Respondent: Signways Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
17 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Dismissal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Exempted Development, Alteration of Structures, Unauthorised Structures, Advertisement Hoardings, Material Change of Use
Planning and Development Law Administrative Law Exempted Development Alteration of Structures Unauthorised Structures Advertisement Hoardings Material Change of Use

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of Dublin

Applicant/appellant

Arnold Lowe

Respondent

Signways Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeal From High Court Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the replacement of an advertisement hoarding constitutes 'development' under planning legislation
  2. 2 Whether such replacement is an 'exempted development' under s.4(1)(g) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963
  3. 3 Whether the replacement materially affects the external appearance of the structure

Ratio Decidendi

The replacement of the advertisement hoarding constituted an alteration to the planning unit (gable wall with hoarding) but did not materially affect the external appearance of the premises so as to render it inconsistent with the character of the structure or neighbouring structures. Therefore, the works were exempted development under s.4(1)(g), and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; High Court order affirmed