South Dublin County Council; O'Neill v Threshford Ltd and Ors; Branach Developments Ltd and Anor (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This judgment (delivered by Judge Humphreys) records orders made following an earlier written judgment (the "No. 1 judgment") in which the court dismissed appeals and affirmed a Circuit Court order that certain works constituted unauthorised development and were not exempt. The earlier judgment ordered cessation of the development, removal of structures and restoration of the lands, with costs awarded against the developers. The present judgment sets out the form of mandatory relief under s.160 of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (the "remediation order") made on 22 June 2026 following further submissions on the form of orders and remediation plans. The court extended the remediation period originally proposed (6 weeks) to a total of 13 weeks and recorded associated directions concerning a financial bond, surrender of possession and provisional costs orders. Annexes to the judgment set out the orders and a detailed remediation plan.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the works at issue constituted unauthorised development and were not within any exemption (as addressed in the No. 1 judgment).
2. Whether and in what form mandatory relief under s.160 should be made to secure removal of structures and restoration of the lands, including the appropriate remediation timeframe.
3. Whether the respondents should be required to surrender vacant possession for remediation and the consequences if they fail to comply.
4. Whether a financial bond should be required to secure remediation works and the appropriate amount.
5. What orders as to costs should be made (including provisional costs awards and scale of costs).

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants/Defendants (Company B, Company C, Company D)

• Asserted that the new dwellings were the same structures as the old (i.e., alteration/improvement rather than new unauthorised development).
• Proposed a remediation timetable initially suggesting removal of one unit per week over 29 weeks (and earlier claimed six months for removal in some correspondence).
• Resisted the imposition of a financial bond and indicated intention to apply for a stay and to pursue leave/retention applications.
• Filed an affidavit by Attorney Donoghue addressing his use of the title of architect (later confirming compliance with legislation).

Applicant/Plaintiff (Company A / Plaintiff)

• Maintained that the works were unauthorised and not exempt and sought prohibitory and mandatory s.160 relief including removal of structures and full remediation.
• Rejected the respondents' draft remediation proposals as lacking detail.
• Sought remediation of foundations on a green field area outside Chianti Park (as raised by the Plaintiff).
• Proposed that costs be awarded and endorsed by the court, including costs of legal costs adjudication and payment on account.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began from the No. 1 judgment and proceeded to determine the detailed form of mandatory relief. The court accepted that prohibitory relief had been correctly granted and allowed further submissions on mandatory remediation. The court analysed the respondents' position that the new dwellings were the same as prior mobile homes and found that the respondents' description and proposed removal timetable were inconsistent with the evidence of newly erected, non-moveable structures (including foundations and longer erection time), undermining the respondents' factual contention that the works were merely alterations of mobile homes.

The court considered remediation timing and practicality and, following discussion with the parties, determined a remediation programme to be completed within 13 weeks from 22 June 2026 (extended from the 6 weeks proposed in the No. 1 judgment). The court required a comprehensive remediation and landscaping plan accompanied by a method statement, and it authorised the inclusion of ancillary landscaping steps and specified soil, planting and drainage requirements in the schedule attached to the order.

On the question of security, the court found a financial performance bond to be appropriate to ensure remediation by the respondents and to protect against further delay, noting that respondents had continued development despite multiple warnings and that the bond would test their stated willingness to remediate. The court recorded that EUR 150,000 was to be the bond amount specified in the remediation plan, observing that the court could draw on common knowledge to conclude that such a bond would not be unduly excessive relative to remediation works, absent contrary evidence.

The court provided for surrender of vacant possession to the council (Company A) for remediation either by agreement or if the respondents breached the order and the council requested possession; it also directed that if the council took possession it would carry out the works within 13 weeks of taking possession (subject to court directions) and that return of possession would be regulated by further order and by statutory provisions cited in the order.

The court made provisional directions as to costs, including a provisional order awarding costs to the applicant subject to contrary submissions within a fixed period, and directed that the costs order, if made, would include costs of legal costs adjudication. Outstanding matters (method statement disagreements, stay applications, scale and payment on account of costs) were listed for further hearing.

Holding and Implications

MANDATORY S.160 REMEDIATION ORDERS GRANTED

Holding (direct effect): The court ordered mandatory s.160 remediation in the terms recorded on 22 June 2026 requiring the respondents (Company B, Company C and Company D) to remove all structures erected since August 2025 (including foundations and remnants) and to restore the lands in accordance with the detailed remediation and landscaping plan and method statement, to be completed within 13 weeks from 22 June 2026. The court ordered that the respondents surrender vacant possession to Company A for remediation if agreed or if the respondents breach the order and Company A requests possession; in that event Company A may carry out remediation within 13 weeks of taking possession. The court provisionally directed that costs be awarded to the applicant subject to contrary submissions and specified that the remediation plan should be secured by a financial performance bond in the amount of EUR 150,000. Outstanding issues (including any stay application and detailed costs questions, and resolution of any disagreement about the method statement) were listed for further hearing.

Implications: The order directly requires removal and restoration within the specified timeframe and provides for council-led remediation if the respondents fail to comply; the judgment records provisional costs directions and security for remediation. The opinion does not purport to establish a broader new legal precedent beyond the facts and orders recorded in this matter.