The High Court has rejected James Nugent’s appeal against a Circuit Court order requiring him to remove an electronic gate and a waste trailer from land in Belinstown, Ballyboughal, County Dublin.
In a judgment delivered on 1 October 2021, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland found the gate was not exempted development because it facilitated increased vehicle movements between two sites, creating a traffic hazard on the R108. The trailer was unauthorised development, and Mr Nugent had not shown that it remained in one location for the seven years needed to rely on the statutory enforcement limit.
The appeal concerned two parts of an order made by Judge Linnane on 28 November 2019 under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The gate was set back about 23 metres from the public road. Mr Nugent argued that the distance allowed vehicles to wait off the road while the outer gate opened. He also argued that the gate qualified for an exemption applying to gates no higher than two metres.
The judge accepted that the inner gate could reduce queuing on the R108. But she found that, viewed in the context of the use of the land, it enabled large volumes of forklifts and other vehicles to travel between Site A and Site B. The underlying finding that Site A was being used for non-agricultural commercial activity had not been appealed. The judge concluded that the resulting traffic hazard meant the gate lost the exemption. She did not decide the Council’s separate argument that the gate breached a condition attached to permission for the outer gate.
Mr Nugent accepted that the trailer needed planning permission and had none. He argued that it had been used to store food waste or animal feed since 2008 or 2009, putting it outside the seven-year enforcement period. The Council relied on evidence and admissions that the mobile trailer had been moved around the site, including between a shed and the field.
Citing an earlier High Court decision concerning mobile homes and caravans, Ms Justice Hyland said the person relying on the limitation period had to show the structure remained in the same location for the required period. Mr Nugent had not provided evidence that the movements were minor or established how long the trailer stayed in any one location. The judge therefore rejected the limitation defence.
The Council had objected to additional evidence Mr Nugent sought to introduce on appeal. The judge did not decide whether it could be admitted, finding that it would not resolve the lack of evidence about the trailer’s location.
The judgment records that both the gate and trailer had already been removed following the Circuit Court order. The High Court reserved the formal order and costs, directing that it hear submissions on those matters.