The Supreme Court allowed Donegal County Council’s appeal and dismissed a claim by Grianan An Aileach Interpretative Centre Company Ltd over events proposed at its visitors’ centre in Speenoge, Burt, County Donegal. It did not decide whether the disputed events were permitted by the existing planning permission.
The company had received permission in December 1998 for a visitors’ centre with exhibition spaces, an audio-visual theatre, a craft shop and a centre of intercultural activity, among other facilities. A condition restricted the premises to uses shown on the submitted plans unless the planning authority agreed otherwise in writing. Parts of the theatre and history exhibition area had not been completed.
The dispute arose after the company sent the Council a programme of events for March to August 2002. It included cultural celebrations, themed banquets and music. The Council said the proposed regular functions appeared to go beyond the permission, and warned that use as a concert venue, for weddings or for other regular functions associated with hotels or entertainment venues could breach the condition. The company later proposed further “Nights of Intercultural Activities”. It sought declarations and orders preventing the Council from restricting those uses.
At trial, the High Court treated the hearing of the company’s motion as the trial of the action. The judge granted a declaration allowing activities of the type in the company’s event schedules and similar activities, including food and drink ancillary to cultural events. The declaration excluded non-cultural activities, weddings, use as a nightclub, and use solely or primarily as a restaurant without the Council’s permission.
The Council appealed, arguing that the High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant that kind of declaration and that the judge had wrongly interpreted the permission. The company argued that the High Court could determine the meaning of a permission where the parties disputed its scope.
Delivering judgment on 15 July 2004, Chief Justice Keane said the dispute necessarily raised whether the proposed activities would amount to a material change of use, and therefore “development” under the Planning and Development Act 2000. Section 5 allowed the planning authority to make a declaration on that question, with review by An Bord Pleanála. In the Supreme Court’s view, the High Court should not decide the issue in these proceedings as though it were the planning authority or the Board, creating a risk of overlapping jurisdiction.
The Court also said the High Court declaration had been framed in terms neither party sought and left uncertainty about the boundary between cultural and non-cultural events. It allowed the appeal and substituted an order dismissing the company’s claim. The ruling did not determine whether any particular proposed event required further permission; it addressed the proper forum for resolving that planning question.