Fingal County Council v. Crean [2001] IEHC 148 (19th October, 2001)

Fingal County Council v. Crean [2001] IEHC 148 (19th October, 2001)

The court found that the 1998 works constituted the erection of a new structure, not the repair or replacement of the 1981 structure, and thus did not qualify for exemption under Section 4(1)(g) of the 1963 Act. The respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving entitlement to exemption. The applicant was entitled to enforcement orders as sought.

Citation
[2001] IEHC 148
Parties
Applicant: Fingal County Council; First Named Respondents: Kathleen Crean and Mr Crean; Second Named Respondent: Signway Holdings Limited
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Application for Planning Enforcement Orders / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Orders granted in favour of the applicant
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Development, Exempted Development, Planning Permission, Statutory Limitation Periods, Enforcement Proceedings
Planning Law Administrative Law Unauthorised Development Exempted Development Planning Permission Statutory Limitation Periods Enforcement Proceedings

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fingal County Council

Applicant

Kathleen Crean and Mr Crean

First Named Respondents

Signway Holdings Limited

Second Named Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Planning Enforcement Orders / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the advertising hoardings erected in 1998 constitute unauthorised development under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963
  2. 2 Whether the works carried out in 1998 fall within the exemption for repair/replacement under Section 4(1)(g) of the 1963 Act
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is precluded from relief due to delay, acquiescence, or procedural defects

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1998 works constituted the erection of a new structure, not the repair or replacement of the 1981 structure, and thus did not qualify for exemption under Section 4(1)(g) of the 1963 Act. The respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving entitlement to exemption. The applicant was entitled to enforcement orders as sought.

Court Disposition

Orders granted in favour of the applicant

Orders

  • Respondents restrained from maintaining unauthorised advertising hoardings/signs at North Road, Finglas, Coldwinters.
  • Respondents directed to remove unauthorised advertising hoardings/signs erected on the lands.