The High Court has ruled that the demolition of a building at 25 Dublin Street, Carlow, was not exempt development under planning law, but has not yet decided whether to order its reinstatement. The court said that decision would await the cross-examination of the second respondent, Joseph Germaine, about his reasons for carrying out the demolition.
The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Baker on 4 May 2017, concerned an application under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. Elaine Morgan brought the case as a co-owner of the adjoining protected structure at 26 Dublin Street, with Carlow County Council later joined as a co-applicant. The respondents were Slaneygio Limited, which owned number 25, and Mr Germaine, its principal shareholder.
The respondents said the building had been demolished for safety reasons after part of a rear wall collapsed during internal works. They relied on an engineer’s report describing the remaining structure as dangerous, and argued that the demolition was exempt because they intended to reconstruct a building of similar appearance. They also said they were willing to reinstate it, making a court order unnecessary.
The court rejected the exemption argument. It held that whether works are exempt must be assessed objectively, by their nature and effect on the building, rather than the owner’s intentions. The complete demolition destroyed the building’s identity as a structure, and a promise to erect a similar-looking replacement did not make that demolition exempt. The court therefore found that section 160 was engaged and the application was properly brought.
However, the court did not make a final decision on the requested injunction. The applicants disputed Mr Germaine’s account that safety concerns explained the demolition, pointing to evidence about the condition of materials and the timing of the works and engineer’s report. They also said he had not followed the engineer’s recommendations to consult the council and obtain the necessary approvals. The judgment recorded conflicting affidavit evidence on whether the demolition was a mistake or an unintended consequence of lawful works.
Mr Germaine did not attend when required for cross-examination. Justice Baker said the factual conflict could not be resolved on the affidavits alone and that the discretionary question—whether to refuse an injunction in light of the respondents’ explanation—would await his cross-examination.
The judgment noted the council’s request for reinstatement in like dimensions and fabric, with consultation involving the council and a conservation architect. Justice Baker said the work’s type and quality should respect the building’s character and that expert scrutiny might be needed. The court’s decision on exemption did not itself order reinstatement or settle the final relief.