Financial hardship for developers who built 29 homes without planning 'is on them', says judge

FINANCIAL HARDSHIP FOR developers who built 29 modular homes without planning permission in a highly sensitive site at Brittas in south Co Dublin “is on them”.

That is according to High Court judge, Mr Justice Richard Humphreys, who has now approved a seven-week extension to an initially proposed six week remediation plan for the removal of the 29 modular homes.

In a new High Court ruling concerning the remediation plan for the unauthorised development, Mr Justice Humphreys has confirmed that a 13-week timeframe has been agreed for the removal of the homes between the parties.

In his original judgment on 3 June ordering the removal of the homes, the judge said that it was a “particularly egregious case” of disregard of planning law and set down a six-week period for the removal of the homes.

At a subsequent hearing earlier this month on the planned remediation plan, the developers, Branach Developments Ltd, with a registered address at Thomastown, Caragh, Kildare, and the site owners, Mullnassa Limited and Threshford Limited, with registered addresses at Rock Road, Blackrock, Dublin argued for a 29-week remediation plan.

On behalf of the three, Michael O’Donnell SC said that the proposed removal of one house per week over the next 29 weeks would be more expensive for his clients but would mean less environmental damage because it proposed a systematic disassembly of each structure, rather than bulldozing them.

However, in a 14-page written judgment on the remediation plan and related issues, Mr Justice Humphreys said that a subsequent hearing on 22 June “a timeline of a total of 13 weeks was formulated following discussion with the parties”.

Advertisement

Mr Justice Humphreys has also ordered that the developers provide a €150,000 financial bond to South Dublin County Council and this will be returnable when the site is restored to the satisfaction of the council.

The judge said that “the bond was resisted but this is a standard term for a planning permission”.

Mr Justice Humphreys stated that while there is a modest degree of financial inconvenience for the respondents, “they could have avoided serious financial implications by stopping work when they got the warning letter from the council, when they got warning letters from Mr [John] O’Neill, when they got the enforcement order, when proceedings were issued, when an injunction was sought. “

He said: “But no – they just stood on the accelerator through those flashing red lights, in the hope of creating a fait accompli before they were brought to a halt.

He said: “So financial hardship to them as a result is on them, not on the applicants.”

The judge said that “a bond will provide some assurance that the remediation will actually be carried out and will put to the test the respondents’ stated willingness to carry out the remediation”.

He said: “While there was no evidence about the cost of the remediation works, you don’t need to know much about building costs to know that €150,000 would only cover a fraction of the works that are going to be required.”

The developers are seeking a stay on the High Court orders on the basis of a proposed leave to appeal application to the Supreme Court and/or a proposed retention planning application to the Council.

Mr Justice Humphreys said that the issue of the stay can be addressed in court on 6 July.