The Supreme Court has dismissed Dublin Corporation’s appeal seeking removal of an advertising hoarding at 3 Inns Quay, Dublin 7, holding that its replacement was exempt development under the planning legislation then in force.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice McCracken on 17 December 2004, concerned the Corporation’s remaining claim for an order requiring Arnold Lowe and Signways Limited to remove the hoarding. The dispute had begun with a 1999 motion under section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976, as amended.
The High Court had granted an order in 2000 requiring the respondents to discontinue the unauthorised advertising use, but refused to order removal of the hoarding. The respondents successfully appealed that decision in 2001, and the removal issue was sent back to the High Court. In February 2003, the High Court dismissed the Corporation’s application. The Corporation then appealed that dismissal to the Supreme Court.
The judgment records that an advertising hoarding had been attached to the building’s gable wall since the late 1950s or earlier, with replacements over the years separated by no more than a few days. A previous contractor’s hoarding was removed around 15 December 1995, and Signways installed a replacement on 19 December. The trial judge found the new hoarding had the same dimensions as the one it replaced.
The Corporation argued that installing the replacement was “development” and left a structure that was not present on the appointed day, 1 October 1964. The respondents accepted that the work was neither maintenance nor improvement, but argued it qualified as an “other alteration” exempt under section 4(1)(g) of the 1963 Act.
Mr Justice McCracken agreed that the replacement involved works and development. However, he accepted the trial judge’s treatment of the gable wall and attached hoarding as a single planning unit or structure. In that context, replacing one hoarding with an identical one was an alteration that did not materially affect the premises’ external appearance so as to make it inconsistent with the character of the building or neighbouring structures.
The Court therefore dismissed the appeal. The ruling addressed the requested removal order; the judgment notes that the earlier order concerning discontinuance of the advertising use was not the issue before the Court.