An Bord Pleanála has argued before the High Court there was substantial material to support its decision to confirm a compulsory purchase order (CPO) over a site extending from the former Carlton cinema in central Dublin.
Mr Ian Finlay SC, for the board, also yesterday disputed arguments that Dublin City Council had made the CPO in December 2001 without identifying what type of development was required for the site. The type of development was, "in general, most certainly identified".
The development was intended to implement the Integrated Area Plan for O'Connell Street and included a pedestrian walkway from the Carlton site back on to Moore Street and envisaged hotels, street bar cafés and quality restaurants.
An inspector with the board had conducted an oral hearing over 11 days of an appeal by Mr Paul Clinton, a project manager and member of the Carlton group, against the CPO, Mr Finlay added. After that hearing the inspector had produced a report recommending the CPO be confirmed.
The inspector had noted it was critical to the development of the Carlton site that there be unitary ownership. That was not the case as ownership was fragmentary and Mr Richard Quirke, another member of the Carlton group, had, shortly before the CPO was made, said he intended to withdraw from the group. The council was aware in late 2001 there were differences between Mr Clinton and Mr Quirke and this would have hampered progress on the development.
This was a friendly CPO, and the reason for it being made was that no development was taking place on the Carlton site, Mr Finlay said. If the Carlton group had been in a position to progress its development, that would have been facilitated.
The Carlton site is at the centre of ongoing complex litigation involving a number of developers, Dublin City Council, An Bord Pleanála and the State.
That litigation includes proceedings in which Mr Clinton, of the Gate Lodge, Ranelagh, is challenging the confirming last May of the CPO. In his action against Dublin City Council, An Bord Pleanála and the State, Mr Clinton claims the CPO breaches his constitutional rights to property. He claims the CPO was made without the council affording the Carlton project adequate time.
Dublin City Council claims it made the CPO in December 2001 after coming to the view that the Carlton group had neither the finance nor development expertise to advance the project.
In submissions opposing Mr Clinton's proceedings, Mr Finlay said yesterday Mr Clinton was a member of the consultative group on the O'Connell Street plan and regular meetings had been held with him with a view to advancing the Carlton project. Mr Clinton was aware CPO powers would be invoked if the development did not proceed.
Mr Finlay said he did not accept claims that, because the issue of the Mr Clinton's ability to develop the Carlton site was a central issue at the oral hearing regarding the CPO, that the oral hearing was lopsided.
Mr Clinton was not opposed to the redevelopment plans for O'Connell Street and had agreed his lands were central to that.
Mr Finlay said Mr Clinton's case was that he, and not anyone else, should be the person to realise that redevelopment.
The hearing before the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan, continues today.