Sligo County Council v O Neill

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, Company A, initiated proceedings by Notice of Motion dated 22nd January 2007 seeking orders under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 to restrain the Defendant from carrying out or continuing unauthorised development on a site owned by the Defendant at The City in The State. The unauthorised development in question was the placement of a mobile home on the site.

Previously, Company A had sought similar reliefs against the Defendant concerning another mobile home on the same site by Notice of Motion dated 21st February 2003. Following that application, Judge Kennedy in the Circuit Court restrained further unauthorised development and ordered removal of the existing mobile home. An appeal by Company A was dismissed by Judge [Last Name] in the High Court on 8th March 2005, who ordered the Defendant to remove the mobile home and associated structures and render electrical connections safe.

Subsequent to that order, the Defendant removed the larger mobile home and its concrete base but replaced it with a smaller mobile home on a gravel base. Company A now seeks removal of this smaller mobile home as unauthorised development.

The site has been used since 1974 by the Defendant's family as a holiday home location, with a mobile home originally placed by the Defendant’s father. Over the years, the mobile home was replaced and upgraded, with the Defendant installing a larger mobile home in 2000. The Defendant contended that the use of the site as a mobile home location has been continuous since 1974 without material change.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the replacement in August 2005 of a mobile home of similar dimensions to the one removed in 2000 constitutes a continuation of the same user of the site as existed prior to 2000.
2. Whether the Applicant is precluded from seeking injunctive relief under section 160(6)(a)(i) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 due to the passage of more than seven years since the commencement of the use of the site for the mobile home.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The removal of the mobile home in August 2005 pursuant to the prior court order and its replacement with a new mobile home constituted a new or fresh development under section 3(1) of the Act, not a temporary removal for repair or maintenance.
• Reliance was placed on the judgment of Morris P. in Dublin Corporation v. Arnold Lowe and Signway Holdings Ltd to argue that removal without intention to replace the original structure constitutes abandonment of rights.
• The Applicant contended that the Defendant’s actions amounted to unauthorised development requiring planning permission.

Respondent's Arguments

• The critical issue is the continuous user of the site for a mobile home since 1974, which should be the dominant consideration under section 3(2)(b) of the Act.
• Planning permission is not required for every replacement of a mobile home; rather, permission relates to the use of the land for a mobile home.
• The mobile home is a chattel and not part of the real estate; it can be removed without destruction.
• Replacement of the mobile home in 2005 with one of similar dimensions was a continuation of the uninterrupted user and thus immune from restraint under section 160 of the Act.
• The objectionable feature in 2000 was the increased size of the mobile home, which had been addressed by court order.
• There was no abandonment of the use of the site as a mobile home location at any stage.
• Granting the injunction would be excessively punitive, given the long-standing use, absence of profit, and lack of public interest concerns.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court found that the placing of a mobile home on the site, including construction of a concrete base and connection to electricity and water, constitutes carrying out of works under section 3(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 and thus amounts to development requiring planning permission.

The court rejected the respondent’s argument that the development should be viewed solely in terms of user of the land under section 3(2)(b), concluding that both subsections apply and are not mutually exclusive.

The removal of the original mobile home in 2000 was deemed a permanent change, amounting to abandonment of any immunity from enforcement action that may have accrued.

The replacement in August 2005 of a mobile home, even if similar in size to the original, was a new development and not a temporary repair or maintenance, thus requiring planning permission.

The court emphasized the importance of the planning process and public interest, noting that failure to grant relief would effectively grant retrospective planning permission circumventing statutory procedures.

The Defendant’s failure to seek planning permission prior to replacement was a breach of statutory obligations, and the court declined to exercise discretion against granting injunctive relief.

Holding and Implications

The court held that the replacement of the mobile home in August 2005 constituted an unauthorised development.

The relief sought by the Applicant was granted.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Defendant must remove the unauthorised mobile home and cease unauthorised development on the site. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles concerning development, abandonment, and planning permission requirements.