The High Court has ruled that a planning enforcement notice issued by Dundalk Town Council over works at Soldiers Point, Lower Point Road, was invalid because its requirements were not stated with sufficient clarity.
The council served the notice on Bill Lawlor on October 21st, 2003 in relation to unauthorised site development works. The site was described in District Court evidence as a former shipyard which had become overgrown and provided a habitat for birds.
The works included stripping and excavating topsoil and moving debris around the site. The enforcement notice required the works to cease and directed that the site be returned to its previous condition. It stated that the required steps were to be taken within a period “immediately commencing” on service of the notice.
Mr Lawlor later faced a District Court prosecution for allegedly failing to comply. He argued that the notice itself did not satisfy section 154 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The District Court rejected those arguments and stated questions of law for the High Court.
Mr Justice O’Neill agreed with Mr Lawlor on both issues.
First, the judge held that a statutory requirement to act within a “specified period” required both a clear beginning and a clear end. The word “immediately” identified when compliance should begin but gave no deadline by which it had to be completed.
Secondly, the direction to “return site to its previous condition” was too vague. The notice did not explain whether previously existing debris had to be replaced, whether removed topsoil and sod had to be restored, or whether reseeding would suffice.
Because failure to comply with an enforcement notice is a criminal offence, the court held that its requirements must be stated with precision so a person can know what must be done and by when.
The High Court therefore answered both questions posed by the District Court in the negative and held the enforcement notice invalid.