The Court of Appeal has discharged a High Court injunction that restrained demolition at 13, 18 and 19 Moore Street and development of a commemorative centre at 14–17 Moore Street, Dublin. The appeal concerned proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
In a judgment delivered on 14 February 2018, Mr Justice Gerard Hogan held that the proposed centre represented significant changes to the development originally permitted in 2010. That permission provided for a commemorative centre at No. 16, with other uses planned for Nos. 14, 15 and 17. The Minister’s later proposal extended the centre across Nos. 14–17 and involved changes to the buildings’ structure and layout.
The court agreed with the High Court that the changes were material from a planning perspective and had not been assessed through a planning process that would allow potentially affected third parties to express their views. It also rejected the Minister’s argument that Mr Moore’s possible collateral motives were decisive to his application for relief.
However, the appeal turned on the interpretation of section 260 of the 2000 Act. The Minister argued that it disapplied planning law for works authorised under the National Monuments Acts. Mr Moore argued that planning permission and monuments consent were separate requirements.
The Court of Appeal accepted the Minister’s interpretation. It held that section 260 disapplied the planning regime for the Minister’s works at or near a national monument, provided the appropriate consent under section 14 of the National Monuments Act 1930 was in place. It therefore concluded that the proposed works did not breach the Planning Acts, despite the material changes from the 2010 permission.
The court also held that the requirement for substantive works to begin within three months of approval of the revised design did not invalidate the consent. It treated the time requirement as directory and noted that no identifiable prejudice from the delay had been shown.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and discharged the section 160 injunction. Its ruling addressed the planning proceedings; the judgment does not state that it decided every issue arising from the separate National Monuments Act proceedings.