The High Court dismissed Bernadine McCabe’s application for an order requiring Córas Iompair Éireann and Iarnród Éireann – Irish Rail to restore a railway under-bridge at Gingerstown, Co. Kildare. Mr Justice Herbert ruled that the works were exempted development, so McCabe could not obtain relief under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
The case concerned works carried out over three days in March 2002 on bridge No. 409, which carries railway lines over the R409 road. The railway operators replaced the brick and stone arch with a flat, raised precast concrete deck to improve clearance for high-sided vehicles. They said the work was needed to address deterioration and repeated bridge strikes, and to improve safety for road and rail users.
McCabe argued that the works required planning permission and sought restoration of the bridge to its earlier condition. The operators maintained that the work was exempt under section 4(1)(h) of the 2000 Act. At the hearing, they abandoned a separate argument that the works were exempt under Class 23 of the 2001 planning regulations.
The court found that the work materially affected the bridge’s external appearance because it replaced the arch with a flat deck. But it held that reconstruction or renewal could still qualify as exempt development if it did not amount to substantial replacement or rebuilding. On the evidence, the bridge had not been so completely altered that it had become a new structure.
The judge also found that the changed appearance was not inconsistent with the bridge’s character. He considered the structure as a whole, including its dimensions, surviving limestone abutments and wing walls, materials, proportions and setting. Although the semicircular arch had been a distinctive feature, the court found it was not so exceptional that it alone defined the bridge’s character.
The application was dismissed. The judgment did not order restoration; the court concluded that no unauthorised development had been carried out for the purposes of the section 160 claim. The source records that an earlier planning authority declaration that the works were not exempt had been quashed in separate judicial review proceedings in 2004. It also says a further judicial review application had been allowed to proceed in 2005 and had not yet been heard at the time of this judgment.