No planning permission exists for a one-storey building on a site in Co Wicklow, the Supreme Court found yesterday. The court rejected an appeal by Mr Anthony Child and his wife, Elizabeth, against a High Court decision restraining them from erecting a dwelling-house at Scurlocks Leap, Manor Kilbride.
Mr Justice Barrington, delivering the Supreme Court judgment, said the holding was traversed by two streams draining into Poulaphouca reservoir.
In 1986 Mrs Child applied for planning permission for a two-storey house on the site. The Director of Community Care and Medical Officer of Health for Co Wicklow recommended refusal.
Five councillors proposed a notice of motion under Section 4 of the City and County Management (Amendment) Act directing the county manager to grant planning permission. The planning authority informed councillors that the application ought to be withdrawn. The law agent advised that the manager ought to refuse to comply with a Section 4 motion.
In January 1987 the council passed a Section 4 motion by 11 votes to seven. On January 29th, 1987, the manager decided to refuse permission. The planning authority said a copy of the refusal was sent to Mrs Child and to an architect. The Childs maintained they did not receive notification.
A motion seeking a restraining order under the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act was brought by the council because the Childs proceeded to construct a building. The planning authority said this was a bungalow and differed dramatically from that for which permission had been sought.
Mr Justice Barrington said that at the time of the High Court hearing the structure had been partly built. The High Court judge restrained further development, but to minimise hardship to the Childs he allowed liberty to complete the roof. There was no planning permission for the building now on the lands. The declaration of the High Court was designed to prevent the Childs being in contempt of court if they decided to roof the structure on the lands at the time. It was designed to save the loss which would befall them if they were obliged to leave a roofless structure open to the elements.
The High Court judge had clearly contemplated that even at that late stage an application should be made for retention.