The High Court has found that several works and changes of use at Weston Aerodrome required planning permission, while ruling that the aerodrome’s security fence, taxiway works and wastewater treatment system qualified for exemptions.
Mr Justice William M. McKechnie delivered the judgment on 28 April 2005 in proceedings brought by South Dublin County Council against Fallowvale Limited and Weston Limited under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The Council sought orders over alleged unauthorised development at the aerodrome in Back Weston, Lucan. The court did not make final enforcement orders in this judgment: it directed that it would receive further submissions on what orders were appropriate.
The court found that the green hangar shown in the evidence had been built between 1997 and 2000 and had previously been refused retention permission. It held that the respondents could not rely on an exemption for that structure. It also found that an old hangar had been replaced by a larger one. The court rejected the argument that the replacement was simply a re-roofing job and concluded that the exemption for extensions to airport operational buildings did not cover demolition and replacement. The respondents had also not given the required four weeks’ notice.
The court ruled that the bungalow had principally been a dwelling house, with other aerodrome-related activities incidental to that use. It found that the business use amounted to a material change of use and that the alterations materially affected the building’s external appearance. The rooftop control tower was not exempt: the court held that it was not an aid to navigation covered by Class 39 and, even if it were a visual navigation aid under Class 32, it was not “on the ground”. The judge left open whether this type of tower could qualify as a visual navigation aid in a future case.
The new and extended car parking areas were also found to require permission. The court was not persuaded that the area had long been used as a car park, and said an existing permission for a different car park meant the works were inconsistent with the permitted use. It also rejected the claim that the fenced area remained an airside road. The court found that the “New Stores” was a new structure, and that the fuel tank required permission.
By contrast, the wastewater system qualified for the exemption for works to an existing structure: the judge preferred evidence that part of the former system remained in use and that the new system was sited virtually where the old one had been. The fence and taxiway works were accepted as exempt under Class 32. The mound of earth had been partly removed under an undertaking to the court, but its relocation was found not to qualify for an exemption and to require permission unless valid permission existed.