The High Court has dismissed an appeal by three respondents against a Wicklow County Council enforcement order concerning a gate, shed, stored materials and vehicles on land in County Wicklow. The court reaffirmed the Circuit Court’s removal and restoration orders, but deferred the final decision on costs.
The appeal concerned a Circuit Court order made on 27 July 2015 under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The High Court found that the respondents had not proved the alleged unauthorised development was in place by 13 June 2005, and rejected their limitation defence.
The Council said the gate and shed had been erected without planning permission and that materials and commercial vehicles were stored on the site for a waste business operated by the third respondent. The respondents argued that the land had been ceded to the second respondent, who said she had used it since 1999 and that a shed and barrier had been there since 2001. They also argued that the developments were exempt or outside the time limit for enforcement.
The judge found that, although there had once been an intention to transfer part of the land, no council disposal resolution was passed and the land was never transferred. The court also noted a conflict between the second respondent’s later claims of ownership and her 2011 letter asking why the proposed transfer had not happened.
On the gate and shed, the court found the second respondent had not established that either was in place by the relevant date. It held that the gate was development requiring permission and was not exempt. The judge rejected the second respondent’s evidence that the shed had existed since 2001, noting that neither of the sons she said helped build it gave evidence.
The court accepted the Council’s evidence that materials and commercial vehicles were stored on the land and found, on the balance of probabilities, that it was being used for the third respondent’s waste business. It also disregarded affidavits from two additional witnesses who were not produced for cross-examination. The judge described one witness’s claims about being a director of a company dissolved years earlier as a gross attempt to mislead the court.
The High Court dismissed the respondents’ appeal and reaffirmed the Circuit Court orders requiring removal of the gate, shed, materials and vehicles, and restoration of the land. It allowed the Council’s appeal concerning costs, but made no final costs determination at this stage, saying it would hear further from the parties on costs in both courts.