Carrick Hall Holdings Ltd v Corporation of Dublin

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice McWilliam
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1983
• Neutral Citation: 1982 WJSC-HC 2826
• Court: High Court
• Date: 01 January 1983

1982 WJSC-HC 2826

No. 406SP/1979

CARRICKHALL HOLDINGS LTD. v. DUBLIN CORP.

CARRICKHALL HOLDINGS LIMITED

-v-

DUBLIN CORPORATION

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice McWilliamdelivered on the 30th June 1982.

2 These proceedings relate to premises known as Carrick Hall Hotel, 69, Orwell Road, Rathgar, Dublin, and are brought by the Plaintiff by way of appeal from a decision of An Bord Pleanala, given on a reference to it by the Defendant under Section 5 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, that the change of use of the premises from use as a hotel without a public bar to use as a hotel with a public bar is development within the meaning of the Act of 1963 and is not an exempted development.

3 The premises were probably acquired by a Mrs. McWeeney and her husband shortly after the end of the second world war. There is no evidence as to the use of the premises by them at the beginning but I think it may be assumed that they acquired it for use as a small hotel. In 1958 a hotel licence was obtainedfor the premises. At the time of the purchase of the premises by the Plaintiff in 1975 they were described on a brochure as Carrick-Hall Flatel and this advertised self-service catering in self-containedapartments.

4 After the purchase, the Plaintiff applied for a transfer of the licence. This was refused in the District Court but was granted, on appeal, by the Circuit Court. At some stage an application was made for an ordinary seven-day licence but I have not got any particulars of this, whether it was made on the application for a transfer or whether it was made on behalf of Mrs. McWeeney or on behalf of the Plaintiff. However and whenever it was obtained, it is accepted that the Plaintiff is the holder of an ordinary seven-day licence as distinct from a hotellicence.

5 As a result of obtaining the ordinary seven-day licence, the Plaintiff reconstructed or altered the ground floor of the premises so as to incorporate a lounge bar and there conducted an ordinary publican's lounge bar trade. To advertise this, a sign proclaiming "Lounge Bar" in large letters was erected but no planning permission had been obtained for this and the planningauthority required it to be removed. These changes led to a large increase in the licensed trade and, as a result, to a large increase in the number of motor cars coming and going and parked in Orwell Road, frequently obstructing the gateways of the residents, to a considerable increase in noise in the late evenings and to a certain amount of abuse by customers of the residents who complained either to the customers or to the employees of the Plaintiff.

6 Although the Plaintiff was given notice of the reference to An Bord Pleanala under Section 5 and furnished with copies of the correspondence between the Defendant and An Bord Pleanala and was invited to make comments, the invitation was not accepted and no representations were made on behalf of the Plaintiff.

7 The decision of An Bord Pleanala was given without any statement of the...