The High Court dismissed Urban Entertainment Limited’s application to restrain hotel development at 7–13 Upper Ormond Quay, Dublin, finding that the company had not established a breach of planning conditions that would justify the orders it sought under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered judgment on 9 August 2019. Urban Entertainment, which trades as Bagots Hutton, holds a 25-year lease on adjoining premises and had operated a restaurant there since June 2016. It sought orders preventing further development unless specified planning conditions were met, and requiring construction and traffic management plans and work that would not make restaurant operations impossible.
The respondent, Monteco Holdings Limited, had permission from An Bord Pleanála to demolish an existing hotel and build a new hotel. Demolition began in June 2018, and work had ceased by September. Urban Entertainment alleged breaches of conditions concerning conservation work, protection of adjacent structures and construction management. It also complained of noise, dust and vibration, which it said forced the restaurant to close. The judge said those disputed impacts could not be resolved on affidavit evidence without cross-examination, and that a nuisance complaint did not itself establish a planning-condition breach. Damages proceedings concerning nuisance were separate.
On conservation condition 4, the court found substantial compliance. Lighting and signage details remained outstanding, but the judge characterised that issue as minor and not a reason to restrain work. The respondent had also retained a conservation architect to oversee the work.
The court found the respondent in substantial compliance with condition 6, which required written agreement with Dublin City Council on proposals to protect nearby structures and conduct surveys. The council had accepted the submitted details as compliant. The judge was satisfied the respondent had taken the steps it could to carry out a pre-construction structural survey, which required a neighbour’s consent. Counsel for the respondent undertook that post-construction condition and structural surveys would be carried out.
The judge identified no breach of condition 11, which required construction and traffic management plans to be agreed with the council before work began. The council had found the submitted plans satisfactory and compliant. The court also rejected the applicant’s argument that such written agreement required a formal manager’s or chief executive’s order.
The judge noted that Dublin City Council had not taken steps indicating it considered the conditions breached. He concluded that the applicant had not identified a breach that permitted the court to grant the relief sought and dismissed the application. The court did not determine the disputed nuisance and damage allegations in this proceeding.