The High Court has granted Angela Heavey leave to appeal the refusal of her application to challenge a compulsory purchase order covering her property at 17 and 17A North Street, Swords, beside Swords Castle.
In a judgment delivered on 30 May 2025, Mr Justice Humphreys certified three questions for the appeal. They concern whether an appeal from refusal of an ex parte application may allow new evidence or amended grounds, and whether the planning inspector’s reliance on claims that the property was the last land beside the castle not controlled by Fingal County Council, and on benefits including improved views of the castle, could support a challenge to the order.
The order was made by Fingal County Council in 2022 and confirmed without modification by An Bord Pleanála in May 2024. It covers a 545.67-square-metre building and site and forms part of the council’s Swords Cultural Quarter project. The council’s stated purposes include public realm improvements and the development of the castle as an amenity and cultural attraction.
Heavey’s earlier application for leave to bring judicial review was refused in August 2024. The judge reviewing that refusal said the inspector’s report had not been put before the court, although he considered public records including the report in deciding the appeal application. The judgment records that the earlier refusal rested on the grounds presented and the materials then before the court; the present hearing was about leave to appeal, not a fresh determination of the challenge to the CPO.
The judgment said most of Heavey’s proposed arguments did not raise a point of law warranting certification. It found no arguable appeal point in complaints about the earlier hearing’s time allocation, the trial judge’s conduct, or the failure to obtain additional material from the opposing parties. It also said the claim that a previous CPO decision barred a new order did not raise a major legal question.
However, the judge considered that two issues about the inspector’s reasoning could warrant certification, subject to the appeal court’s answer to the procedural question. One concerns the report’s description of the site as the last “oasis” of land not controlled by the council, given another privately owned property near the castle. The other asks whether reliance on project benefits, including improved public views of the monument, could support the CPO where some such benefits might not depend on acquiring the site.
The court continued the stay on the CPO until the appeal is finally determined or the Court of Appeal makes another order. Costs of the leave application were reserved as costs in the appeal. The judgment does not decide whether the CPO is valid; that remains for the appeal process.