Lord Mayor of Dublin v Lowe and Signways Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Justice Frederick Morris
• Judgment Date: 04 February 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IEHC 161
• Docket Number: No. 45MCA/1999
• Court: High Court
• Date: 04 February 2000

[2000] IEHC 161

The High Court

No. 45MCA/1999

DUBLIN CORPORATION v. LOWE & SIGNWAYS HOLDINGS LTD

In the matter of

The Local Government (Planning & Development) Acts1963–1993

and in the matter of

An Application by the Right Honourable The Lord Mayor

Alderman and Burgesses of Dublin

Pursuant to Section 27 of the Local Government

(Planning and Development) Act1976

(as substituted by Section 19(4)(g) of the

Local Government (Planning and Development) Act1992

Between

The Right Honourable the Lord Mayor Alderman Burgesses of Dublin

Applicant

and

Arnold Lowe and Signways Holdings Limited

Respondents

Citations:

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1976 S27

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1992 S19(4)(g)

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1992 S27(6)

DUBLIN CORP V MULLIGAN UNREP FINLAY 6.5.1980 1980/5/969

DUBLIN CORP V KEVANS UNREP FINLAY 14.7.1980 1980/12/2269

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) ACT 1963 S2(b)(i)

GALWAY CO COUNCIL V CONNACHT PROTEINS LTD UNREP BARRINGTON 28.3.1980 1980/5/1025

DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V TALLAGHT BLOCK CO LTD 1985 ILRM 512

DUBLIN CO COUNCIL V KIRBY 1985 ILRM 325

LOUGHNANE V HOGAN 1987 IR 322

DUBLIN CORP V MCGOWAN 1993 1 IR 405

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) REGS 1994 SI 86/1994 REG 9

LOCAL GOVT (PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT) REGS 1994 SI 86/1994 SCHED 2

Synopsis

Planning

Planning; unauthorised use; application under s.27, Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1976 as substituted by s.19(4)(g), Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1992; applicants seeking an order directing the repondents to discontinue the unauthorised use of the premises for advertisement purposes and directing them to remove the advertisement hoarding; whether there is vested in the court a discretion to refuse the relief sought in a s.27 application on grounds of delay and acquiescence; whether the site had been used for the purpose of an advertising hoarding since before 1st October, 1964; whether there had been a break in continuity which destroyed any rights existing at that time; whether the Court could grant a mandatory order in terms sought by the applicants; whether section 27 proceedings are appropriate.

Held: Order granted directing the respondents to discontinue the unauthorised use of the premises; order directing them to remove the advertisement hoarding refused.

Dublin Corporation v. Arnold Lowe and Signways Holdings Limited - High Court: Morris P. - 04/02/2000

The applicant sought an order directing that an advertising board owned by the second respondent erected on premises owned by the first respondent be removed. The applicant contended that the board required planning permission and that the continued display of the sign was in breach of the planning code. The respondents argued, inter alia, that delay on the part of the applicant and the use of the building for advertising purposes prior to 1963, thereby establishing established user rights, should defeat the application. The High Court rejected these arguments holding that the respondents should forthwith discontinue the unauthorised use of the premises in question.

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Frederick Morris delivered on the 4th day of February 2000

Justice Frederick Morris

2 This matter comes before the Court as an application pursuant to Section 27 of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act1976as substituted by Section 19(4)(g) of the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1992. The Applicants seek

3 (a) an Order directing the Respondents and each of them to forthwith discontinue the unauthorised use of the exterior flank wall (Chancery Place elevation) at first and second floor level of the premises situate at and known as No. 3 Inns Quay, Dublin 7 for advertisement purposes.

4 (b) An Order directing the Respondents and each of them to forthwith remove the advertisement hoarding (including all fixtures and fittings) erected on the exterior flank wall (Chancery Place elevation) of the premises situate at and known as no. 3 Inns Quay, Dublin 7 by the Respondents and each of them without the benefit of planning permission.

5 The first named Respondent is the owner of premises no. 3 Inns Quay, Chancery Place, Dublin 7. The second named Respondents carry on the business of erecting and maintaining advertising hoardings.

6 On the 3rd January 1996 Mr. Daniel J. Nolan a Corporation Official with the Planning Department of Dublin Corporation carried out an inspection of the premises no. 3 Inns Quay, Dublin. He says that he observed a new advertisement hoarding with a name plate "Signways" on the exterior flank wall of the premises no. 3 Inns Quay, Dublin 7. The dimensions of this hoarding were 6 metres x 3 Metres. It is common case that this hoarding is the property of the second named Respondent and it is maintained there pursuant to a licence granted to the second named Respondent by the first named Respondent for which the first named Respondent is paid a rent or licence fee. There is no planning permission in existence for the hoarding.

7 I am satisfied that prior to the month of December 1995 a hoarding of exactly the same dimensions existed on this building erected and maintained there by another company David Allen Holdings Limited. This hoarding was removed because this Company and the first named Respondent decided to terminate their business association in December 1995. The premises were inspected by a Corporation Official on the 18th December 1995 and on that date the hoarding had been removed. The exact date upon which it was removed is not clear. The evidence is that it was due to be removed on the 13th December 1995. However, the first named Respondent says that it was removed "during the course of the weekend commencing on the 15th December 1995." Accordingly, on the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the hoarding which had been the property of David Allen Holdings Limited was removed two or three days before the hoarding owned by the second named Respondent was erected on Tuesday 19th December 1995. This change came about as a result of a decision on the part of the first named Respondent to permit the...