Dublin Corporation v Regan Advertising Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Blayney
• Judgment Date: 18 June 1986
• Neutral Citation: 1986 WJSC-HC 615
• Docket Number: 1985 - 69 M.CA,[1985 No. 69 MCA]
• Court: High Court
• Date: 18 June 1986

DUBLIN CORPORATION v. REGAN ADVERTISING LTD

IN THE MATTER OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING AND

DEVELOPMENT) ACTS 1963TO 1983

AND IN THE MATTER OF PREMISES NUMBER 10 YORK ROAD, DUBLIN

AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 27 OF

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT (PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976

BETWEEN:

THE RIGHT HONOURABLE THE LORD MAYOR ALDERMEN AND BURGESSES OFDUBLIN

APPLICANTS

AND

REGAN ADVERTISING LIMITED AND JOHN CULLEN AND SONSLIMITED

RESPONDENTS

1986 WJSC-HC 615

1985 - 69 M.CA

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis:

PLANNING

Use

Change - Absence of permission - Prohibition order - Facade of premises used, before and after 1st October 1964, by occupant firm for purpose of displaying large painted sign consisting of name of firm and short description of occupant's trade - Premises were sold to respondent in 1983 - From 1985 the facade was used by advertising agency, by permission of the respondent, for the purpose of displaying commercial advertisements promoting the business interests of persons other than the occupant of the premises - Held that the current use of the facade was a development, not being an exempted development, for which permission had not been obtained - Held, further, that the current use of the facade was a material change of use in relation to its former use despite the fact that the display in each instance came within the definition of the word "advertisement" in s.2(1) of the Act of 1963 - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963, s.2 - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976, s.27 - (1985/69 MCA - Blayney J. - 18/6/86) - [1986] IR 171

|Corporation of Dublin v. Regan Advertising|

Citations:

BURDLE V SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT 1972 3 AER 240

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S2(1)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S3(2)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S26

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S27

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S46(4)

MILLS & ALLEN LTD V GLASGOW DISTRICT COUNCIL 1980 JPL 409

1 JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Blayneydelivered the 18th day of JUNE 1986.

2 This is an application by Dublin Corporation for an Order pursuant to Section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1976prohibiting the Respondents, Regan Advertising Limited (to whom I shall refer as Messrs. Regans) and John Cullen and Sons Limited (to whom I shall refer as Messrs. Cullens) from the continuance of the unauthorised use of the upper part of the facade of the premises at 10 York Road for the exhibition of advertisements.

3 The facts out of which the application arises are not in dispute and are as follows. The premises in question were formerly owned by a company called William P. Ryan Limited.Between 1938 and 1983, when the premises were sold to Messrs. Cullens, they were used by William P. Ryan Limited for the purpose of a business of commercial motor body building. The premises, which consist of a large industrial building, have a two storey facade facing onto York Road, Ringsend. In 1954 William P. Ryan Limited employed a professional sign-writer to paint a large sign on the upper part of the facade. According to the affidavit of Mr. Derek Ryan, whose family owned William P. Ryan Limited, the sign read "William P. Ryan Limited" which was painted in large coloured scripted letters across the entire seventy feet of the facade, with blank spaces of approximately four feet only at each end, and underneath in black capital printed letters were the words "Commercial Body Builders and Engineers". During 1972 the sign was repainted by an employee of William P. Ryan Limited called Sean Quigley, but the wording and the lettering remained thesame.

4 Messrs. Regans became involved with the site of this sign in 1984. There is obviously some agreement of a licensing nature between them and Messrs. Cullens but there is no evidence of what the nature of this agreement is and it is not relevant to anything that I have to decide. Discussions took place between Mr. Paul Regan of Messrs. Regans, and the Planning Authority, and on the 12th November 1984 and the 12th December 1984 Messrs. Regans submitted planning applications in relation to displaying advertisements on the site of the sign. The first of these applications was unacceptable to Dublin Corporation for technical reasons and the second application was withdrawn by Messrs. Regans on the 31st January 1985. While these applications were made, Mr. Regan's view all the time was that they were notnecessary as he considered that the site in question had been used for advertising long before the 1st October 1964, the relevant date for the Planning Acts.

5 Messrs. Regans had initially erected three advertising structures each measuring twenty feet by ten feet on the site in question. This was in September 1984. These were removed on the 4th of April 1985 and since that time the site has been used by Messrs. Regans for the display of advertisements, usually three in number, each measuring twenty feet by ten feet and fixed directly to the upper part of the facade of number 10 York Road. It is the display of these advertisements that Dublin Corporation contends is an unauthorised use of the facade of the premises and it is with a view to seeking to terminate such use that Dublin Corporation issued the present motion on the 17th September 1985. Before issuing the motion, Dublin Corporation had written to both Messrs. Regans and Messrs. Cullens giving them...