The High Court has refused an application to require the closure and removal of a car park serving the Cliffs of Moher Visitor Centre, finding that the 2002 planning permission included a permanent car park and that the applicant’s enforcement case was brought too late.
Diamrem Limited brought the proceedings under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 against Cliffs of Moher Centre Limited and Clare County Council. It argued that the car park, east of the R478, was temporary and should have ceased operating once a park-and-ride service became available. It sought orders requiring compliance with planning conditions and stopping use of the car park.
The respondents disputed that interpretation. They said the permission granted by An Bord Pleanála in December 2002 allowed a permanent car park, while a later public Part VIII planning process relocated that parking to the site used for the temporary construction car park. The council also said the mobility strategy did not require park-and-ride to become the sole means of car access.
Justice Faherty found that the Board’s permission included a permanent car park. She said Condition 3 required the developer to submit a mobility management strategy for the planning authority’s agreement, but did not require car access to be exclusively by park-and-ride. She also found that Condition 7, concerning a temporary car park during construction, stood alone and was not linked to Condition 3.
The judge accepted evidence that the 2003–2004 Part VIII process allowed the relocated car park to continue operating after construction. She also found that the mobility strategy was submitted and agreed, and that the 2017 council resolution approving upgrade works to the car park could not be challenged within these section 160 proceedings. The applicant’s claim that the 2017 process was started solely to frustrate the case was not accepted.
On that basis, the court was not satisfied that the applicant had shown the car park’s use was unauthorised. The judge went on to consider the time limit in case that conclusion was wrong. She held that any alleged breach of Condition 7 arose when the construction period ended, rather than from the car park’s later ongoing use, and that the application was outside the statutory time limit. She also agreed that a complaint about Condition 3 was late.
The court found insufficient evidence to support the respondents’ separate argument that the development was exempted development. That finding did not change the outcome, because the court had already found no breach of the planning conditions and that the application was out of time. The relief sought was denied; the court did not decide whether it would have exercised its discretion to make an order.