A challenge to Dublin City Council's compulsory purchase order for the old Carlton Cinema site in Dublin's O'Connell Street was turned down by the High Court yesterday.
The decision could mean the early development of the site, which has been at the centre of litigation for some years, although it remains to be seen if yesterday's decision will be appealed.
The challenge to the CPO was brought by Paul Clinton, an architect and member of the Carlton Group, which had secured planning permission to develop the site in late 1999.
In December 2001 Dublin City Council made the CPO and it was confirmed by An Bord Pleanála in January 2003. The High Court action was heard over three weeks ending in March 2004, and judgment was reserved.
Mr Clinton, of Gate Lodge, Ranelagh, Dublin, claimed the CPO breached his constitutional right to property and was made without the council identifying ways to develop the site. He said the Carlton Group was never given a proper opportunity to progress its proposed development.
The council claimed it made the CPO after coming to the view that the Carlton Group had neither the finance nor development expertise to advance the project. An Bord Pleanála also argued that there was substantial material to support its decision to confirm the CPO.
In his reserved judgment yesterday, the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan, said the O'Connell Street Integrated Area Plan considered O'Connell Street as important as the Champs Elysées in Paris or Unter den Linden in Berlin, and that it should be an attraction like great streets of other major cities. This required an integrated approach which was detailed in the plan.
The plan envisaged the creation of a route from O'Connell Street to Moore Street.
Mr Clinton contended that the purpose set out in the CPO and the Bord Pleanála order was insufficient in that no concrete plan for the development of the lands to be acquired existed or was identified.
Within the planning inspector's report, said Mr Justice Finnegan, there was abundant evidence on the background to the making of the CPO. The urban regeneration of O'Connell Street had been held up; it needed to start and the council felt it had to resort to compulsory acquisition of the site to secure its development.
The owners had been unable to develop the site because of division among them and lack of experience in development and lack of financial ability.
The council had been waiting for the development to take place, having given many warnings to the owners. In the absence of progress over four years, the decision was made to compulsorily acquire the site.
In the summary of the evidence before the inspector, there was ample evidence to justify the council's conclusion that compulsory acquisition of the site was necessary, said Mr Justice Finnegan.
He was satisfied that the purpose set out in the CPO and the purpose set out in the Bord Pleanála decision was the same - one which enabled a CPO order to be made and confirmed.
The judge also rejected a constitutional issue raised by lawyers for Mr Clinton. It had been pleaded that provisions of part of the Planning and Development Act, 2000, were invalid having regard to the Constitution. He said the scheme of the legislation did not infringe the constitutional rights of Mr Clinton to provide property.
The question of the costs of the action - which could total about €1 million - was deferred yesterday to give the parties time to consider the judgment. The judge allowed an application for costs made on behalf of Mr Clinton for the oral hearing in early 2002, which had not been dealt with by An Bord Pleanála.