- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Morgan v Slaneygio & Anor
Factual and Procedural Background
This application arises from the demolition by the respondents of a building located at 25 Dublin Street, The City, a terraced building adjoining a protected structure at No. 26 Dublin Street owned by the applicant and her co-owners. The first respondent is a limited liability company owned principally by the second respondent, which owned the demolished premises. The premises was situated within an architectural conservation area but was not itself a protected structure.
The applicant sought an order under section 160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (as amended) for the reinstatement of the premises to its prior condition, alongside ancillary orders regarding the level of court oversight for such works. An interim ex parte injunction was granted restraining further works and preserving structural materials. The local planning authority, Company A, was joined as co-applicant and supported the application.
The respondents admitted to demolishing the building but contended the works were exempted development carried out for health and safety reasons and intended to reinstate the building, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant an order under section 160. The applicant and Company A disputed this, asserting the demolition was unauthorised and not exempt.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the demolition works carried out by the respondents constitute exempted development under section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000.
- Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant an injunction under section 160 of the Act in respect of the demolition works.
- Whether, if jurisdiction exists, the court should exercise its discretion to grant or refuse injunctive relief, having regard to the respondents’ asserted bona fide intentions and health and safety considerations.
- Whether factual disputes concerning the circumstances of the demolition require resolution by cross-examination.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments
- The demolition works were exempted development carried out for maintenance, improvement, or alteration of the building, specifically for health and safety reasons following a structural collapse.
- They intended to reinstate the building in the same style and appearance as the original structure.
- The making of a court order is unnecessary and oppressive given their willingness to reinstate the building.
- The demolition was a necessary safety measure, not a wilful breach of planning law.
Applicant and Company A's Arguments
- The demolition was unauthorised and not exempted development under the Planning and Development Act.
- The works materially affected the external appearance and destroyed the identity of the original building, thus falling outside the scope of exempted development.
- The respondents did not follow recommendations from structural engineers, including seeking planning permission or agreement with the planning authority and neighbours before demolition.
- The evidence suggests a deliberate or careless approach rather than a solely safety-driven demolition.
- The court should grant an order under section 160 to require reinstatement of the building respecting its historic fabric.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Readymix v. An Bord Pleanla [2009] 4 IR 736 | Interpretation of exempted development under s. 4(1)(h), particularly the meaning of "alteration" and when works materially affect the external appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure. | Guided the court in assessing whether demolition works were exempt; court emphasised objective assessment of works' effect on the building's character rather than subjective intention. |
| McCabe v. Cras Iompair ireann & Anor. [2007] 2 IR 392 | Extent of renewal or reconstruction covered by exempted development; substantial replacement or rebuilding removes exemption. | Used to illustrate that total demolition destroys the original identity of the structure, thus cannot be exempted development. |
| Cairnduff v. O'Connell [1986] I.R. 73 | Works materially affecting external appearance may be exempt if consistent with character of the structure and neighbouring buildings. | Supported the principle that works must not render the building inconsistent with its character to be exempt; demolition here destroyed character and identity. |
| Morris v. Garvey [1982] I.L.R.M. 177 | Discretion of the court in granting planning injunctions under s. 160; injunctions to be sparingly exercised but unauthorised development is unlawful. | Informed the court’s approach to discretion in granting injunctive relief, balancing unauthorised development and conduct of parties. |
| Cork County Council v. Slattery Pre-cast Concrete Limited & Ors. [2008] IEHC 291 | Application of discretion in section 160 injunctions; emphasises sparing exercise of discretion. | Reinforced the principle that unauthorised development is unlawful and injunctions are the norm unless exceptional circumstances apply. |
| Wicklow County Council v. Kinsella [2015] IEHC 229 | Factors relevant to discretion in planning injunctions: reasonableness, bona fides, public interest, delay, technicality, hardship, planning authority opinion. | Provided a framework for the court’s discretionary analysis in this case. |
| Westport UDC v. Golden [2002] 1 I.L.R.M. 439 | Consideration of hardship and contribution to the unauthorised situation in discretionary relief under planning law. | Referenced regarding consideration of hardship in exercise of discretion. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court began by defining "works" under the Planning and Development Act 2000 and the scope of exempted development under section 4(1)(h). The respondents' contention that the demolition was exempted development was rejected because the demolition entirely destroyed the building, materially affecting its external appearance and character. The court emphasized that exempted development must be assessed objectively by reference to the effect on the structure’s character, not the subjective intention of the developer.
The court drew on precedent, particularly the judgments in Readymix, McCabe, and Cairnduff, to explain that substantial or total demolition removes the exemption, as the original identity of the building is lost. The respondents’ assertion that the building would be reinstated in the same style did not render the demolition exempt, since the new building would not be the same structure.
Regarding the court’s jurisdiction under section 160, the court found that, since the demolition was unauthorised and not exempt, the section was engaged. The respondents’ willingness to reinstate the building did not negate the court’s power to grant an injunction. However, the court acknowledged the discretionary nature of relief under section 160 and identified relevant factors from case law, including the conduct and bona fides of the parties, public interest, delay, and the opinion of the planning authority.
There were factual disputes about the circumstances leading to the demolition, particularly whether it was an unintended consequence of safety concerns or a deliberate act undertaken without proper consultation or permission. The court determined that these disputes could not be resolved on affidavit alone and that cross-examination of the second respondent was necessary to fully assess the discretionary factors.
When the second respondent failed to attend for cross-examination, the court proceeded with the affidavit evidence and legal arguments but reserved final decision pending possible cross-examination. The court also recognized the need for ongoing supervision of reinstatement works to ensure respect for the character of the original building.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The court held that the demolition works carried out by the respondents are not exempted development under section 4(1)(h) of the Planning and Development Act 2000, thereby engaging the court’s jurisdiction under section 160. The application for an order requiring reinstatement of the building is properly brought. The court reserved its discretion on whether to grant injunctive relief pending cross-examination of the second respondent on factual disputes.
Implications: The decision confirms that total demolition of a building, even with an intention to rebuild in a similar style, is not exempted development and may attract planning enforcement. The ruling underscores the objective test for exemption based on the effect of works on a building’s character, not subjective intention. It also clarifies the court’s approach to discretion in planning injunctions, balancing the unlawfulness of unauthorised development with the conduct and intentions of the respondents. No new precedent was established beyond the application of existing principles to the facts.
Alert