The Court of Appeal (CoA) has rejected a woman’s appeal against a decision affirming a compulsory purchase order (CPO) and demolition of a property she owns next to the Swords Castle national monument in north Co Dublin.
Judge Senan Allen, on behalf of the three-judge CoA, dismissed the appeal brought by Angela Heavey over the High Court’s rejection of her challenge to the CPO of her property at North Street.
The acquisition of the property, and other adjoining buildings, is part of a plan to conserve and enhance the historic site and view of Swords Castle and to aid its development as a major tourist attraction and cultural hub.
Fingal County Council plans to demolish Heavey’s buildings and to build a cultural centre, including a new county library, theatre, arts centre and civic space as the key development within the “Swords Cultural Quarter”.
READ MORE
The case arose after the council moved to purchase Heavey’s property, which consists of a single-storey former office building, substantial outbuilding and rear yard.
Heavey, a barrister, describes the lands as her home and office, and as having been in her family for more than a century. She says she and her family are entitled to develop the site themselves and to realise its development potential.
A planning application she submitted for the site in 2005 for a five-storey commercial development had been refused by the council as it also was on appeal. The previous year, 2004, a CPO for her site by the council had been overturned.
In 2024, another CPO process was approved and Heavey failed to have that one overturned by An Coimisiún Pleanála (then An Bord Pleanála).
Previously, the council had bought other properties along North Street voluntarily.
She brought a challenge in the High Court which rejected her case in 2024.
She then sought to be allowed to appeal that decision to the CoA as in such cases the permission of the court must be obtained before an appeal can take place and only because a point of exceptional importance is raised.
The High Court decided to allow an appeal on a number of specifically certified questions including whether further evidence could be submitted as part of the appeal even though it had been available earlier.
In its judgment rejecting the appeal, the CoA said the answer to all the questions the court was asked was “no”.
The court also formally rebuked Heavey over what it said were “baseless scandalous allegations” against a number of public officials.
Despite being a barrister, and therefore aware of the strictures against accusations such as these, and where she had already been admonished for it by the High Court and warned about it by the president of the CoA, she took “no notice” of this and repeated those allegations, it said.
