The High Court has ordered Gavin Martin to remove a mobile home placed on his site at Kilkillogue, Mullaghmore, after finding that its installation in 2005 was unauthorised development requiring planning permission.
Sligo County Council applied under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to restrain further development and have the mobile home removed. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice O’Neill on 24 May 2007, concerns a smaller unit placed on a gravel base after an earlier court order required removal of a larger mobile home, its concrete base and associated pipework.
The site had been used for a mobile home since 1974. The respondent’s father originally kept one there as a family holiday home. In 2000, Martin replaced it with a larger unit. Following earlier proceedings, the High Court in March 2005 ordered removal of that unit and its concrete base. Martin removed them in August 2005 and placed a smaller mobile home on a gravel base.
Martin argued that the replacement continued the longstanding use of the land and restored the site to its state before the larger unit was installed. He also submitted that the Council was out of time to seek relief because more than seven years had passed since the use began. The Council argued that the 2005 installation was a new development. The judgment records that no planning permission had ever been granted for a mobile home or its use on the site.
Justice O’Neill found that establishing a mobile home on the site involved works, including the base and utility connections, and therefore constituted development. He held that the 2005 gravel base and replacement unit were new works, not maintenance of the original home. The permanent removal of the original unit in 2000 meant any immunity from enforcement associated with it had been abandoned, the judge concluded.
The court rejected the argument that the matter should be assessed solely as a continuation of the land’s use. It also declined to exercise its discretion against an injunction, citing the public’s opportunity to participate in planning decisions and the local authority’s supervisory role. The judgment concludes that the replacement was unauthorised development and that the requested relief should be granted. The source does not set out the wording of the resulting formal order.