The Court of Appeal has dismissed Diamrem Limited’s appeal over the continued use of a car park serving the Cliffs of Moher Visitor Centre, ruling that its application for planning injunctions was brought outside the statutory time limit.
In a judgment delivered on 5 November 2021, Mr Justice Woulfe, with whom Ms Justice Whelan and Mr Justice Pilkington agreed, affirmed the High Court’s decision refusing the company’s application under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The company had sought orders requiring the car park’s removal and prohibiting its use, arguing that its continued operation was unauthorised and breached planning conditions.
The car park at issue is on the eastern side of the R478. The 2002 planning permission for the Visitor Centre included a temporary car park there during construction. The Visitor Centre opened in February 2007, and the car park continued to operate. Diamrem argued that the car park remained temporary while the council considered a park-and-ride scheme, and that the application was therefore not out of time.
The Court of Appeal held that, if the continued use amounted to an unauthorised material change of use, it began when construction ended, around February 2007 or, at the latest, in January 2008. The court said a developer’s 2005 compliance document could not unilaterally extend the temporary period set by the planning permission. Applying the statutory time limit, the court concluded the application should have been made by April 2015. It was filed in July 2016.
The court also rejected the company’s argument that an exception for conditions concerning the ongoing use of land allowed an application at any time. It held that conditions requiring a mobility management strategy and temporary car-park details to be submitted before development were requirements to be met at a particular time, not conditions governing day-to-day use of the land.
The court did not decide whether the car park was unauthorised development, whether the local authority’s Part 8 procedures could modify the planning arrangements, or whether relief should be granted as a matter of discretion. It said the time-limit ruling disposed of the appeal, dismissed it and affirmed the High Court decision. Its provisional view was that the respondents should receive their appeal costs, subject to either party seeking a further hearing within 14 days.