The High Court refused Pascal Conroy’s application to halt or control development at Kilcullen Business Campus, finding substantial compliance with the planning permission and declining to grant any relief under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Dunne on 31 July 2007, concerned permission granted in 2002 for eight business units at the site in County Kildare. Conroy, who held an agreement for a lease of unit 4, alleged breaches of planning conditions, focusing mainly on the permitted floor levels for units 5 and 6. The respondents were John Craddock, Kildare County Council, Mary Craddock and John Craddock Limited.
Condition 5 required a revised site layout plan providing for reduced finished floor levels at units 5, 6 and 7 to be submitted before construction began. The judge accepted that no such plan was submitted before work started, and that the levels later approved by the Council showed increases rather than reductions. However, the condition did not specify the extent of a reduction, and the judge considered its purpose alongside conditions 6 and 7, which addressed landscaping and visual impact. She found that the Council had approved the later plans and that the development had substantially complied with condition 5’s objective of reducing its visual impact from the M9 motorway.
Conroy also raised alleged breaches of other conditions, including requirements concerning unit use, landscaping, site access and infrastructure. The respondents said details had been agreed with the planning authority or could be dealt with during construction. The judge found that some pre-commencement requirements had not been met on time, but said the alleged breaches were technical or trivial and did not justify an order. She noted that the planning file did not record some agreements and said it should be updated urgently.
The court also considered whether it should withhold relief even if breaches had occurred. The judge cited concerns about the applicant’s motivation, including an email recording that he had threatened litigation if others did not agree to his development plans, and the fact that proceedings concerning infrastructure costs owed by his company had been paid after this case began. She also found that Conroy had known of the alleged issues from 2004 but did not issue proceedings until July 2006, while construction continued.
The court concluded that stopping the development at that stage would be unfair to the respondents and other parties. It refused all relief sought. The judgment did not order that development stop or direct the respondents to carry out specified works.