Corporation of Dublin v Maiden Poster Sites Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: MR. JUSTICE MURPHY
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1983
• Neutral Citation: 1982 WJSC-HC 1980
• Date: 01 January 1983
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: No. 38 M.C.A./1982

1982 WJSC-HC 1980

THE HIGH COURT

No. 38 M.C.A./1982

DUBLIN CORP. v. MAIDEN POSTER SITES

IN THE MATTER OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING

AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963TO 1976AND

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 27 OF THE LOCAL

GOVERNMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976

BETWEEN:

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYOR ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OFDUBLIN

Applicants

and

MAIDEN POSTER SITES LIMITED

Respondents

1 JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE MURPHYDELIVERED the 8th day of July 1982

2 This is a claim for relief under section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976(the 1976 Act).

3 The Respondents are a company engaged in the business of erecting hoardings for the display of advertisements. For that purpose they acquire suitable sites or other facilities. Having regard to the nature of the business which they carry on, I would assume that the Respondents are conscious of the need to obtain planning permission for the erection of such structures or the use of such structuresfor advertising.

4 In June 1981 the Respondents acquired from Reg Armstrong Motors Limited the right to use the outer walls of 67 Pearse Street, Dublin for the purpose of displaying poster-type advertisements. Some time between June 1981 and the 27th August 1981 the Respondents erected four hoardings measuring 20 feet by 10 feet on those premises and proceeded to use them for the display of advertisements. It is common case that this development required planning permission and that no such permission was sought or obtained prior to the development.

5 The Respondents did subsequently apply to the Planning Authority for permission to retain the structure but that application was refused. On the 1st July 1982 the Respondents appealed that refusal to the Planning Board and that appeal is still pending.

6 Apart from the existence of the appeal, the only argument offered by the Respondents as to why an order restraining the continued unauthorised development should not be granted was that the works -albeit unauthorised - represent a considerable improvement to the appearance and amenities of premises which had become badly dilapidated. The factual basis for that argument is indeed supportedby the photograph put in evidence by the Respondents.

7 It is proper to say that an important issue was raised as to whether the Court has power under section 27(1) of the 1976 Act - that is to say where no planning permission has been granted - to direct...