The High Court has ordered all use of a large split-level car park in Tuam to be restrained, but stayed the order until the end of the first week in January to reduce inconvenience for the public during the school term’s final weeks.
Mr Justice Hedigan’s judgment, delivered on 17 December 2013, concerned an application under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000. The six applicants, who described themselves as Tuam residents, had originally sought several orders concerning development at Town Parks and Demesne. At this stage, however, they confined their application to stopping use of the split-level car park.
The court recorded that the car park, with 240 spaces, was an unauthorised development. The judge rejected the respondents’ preliminary objection that the applicants had delayed bringing the case. He accepted that they discovered the development was unauthorised in July 2012 and considered it reasonable for them to await the outcome of enforcement notices before filing proceedings on 26 November that year.
Safety was central to the ruling. The judge accepted as convincing evidence from a local school principal that children were drawn to cross the busy supermarket car park after the former Palace Road route was removed. Although the new service road had narrow footpaths and other safety concerns, the court heard that crossing the car park was considered the safest available route. The judge accepted the school principal’s view that this was dangerous.
The judgment also addressed the respondents’ planning history. The judge said the first respondent could not have been unaware that the works begun in December 2011 were unauthorised, particularly after he announced that the previously permitted mixed-use project was not proceeding. On uncontradicted evidence before the court, the judge recorded eight unauthorised developments since 1996 and six enforcement or warning notices, followed repeatedly by retention permissions. He described the planning situation in Tuam’s historic centre as chaotic.
The applicants had sought a restraint on the car park’s use. The court granted that relief, finding it could not extend discretion to the respondent in the circumstances. The judge delayed the order until the end of the first week in January solely in the interests of Tuam’s public. He did not make a final order on the other relief originally pleaded. The precise area covered by the restraint remained to be identified on a map annexed to the order, and the judge said he would hear counsel on its exact form.